Agreed. If that's what the law says, then the law is woefully outdated.Your arguments do make sense.
Though we may need to update the laws and concepts surrounding sensitive information in active theaters of war to properly address the modern internet era concept of readily accessible public information. That such information is readily available for enemies to utilize.
Not like you have to physically hand them documents these days.
Derp. He is painted as a criminal because he broke conditions of his employment and in doing so also broke the law.
Its seems rather stupid to argue for the release of information of unjust acts of the government through illegal means.
The Tuskegee scientists wanted to continue to study how the disease spreads and kills. The experiment lasted four decades, until public health workers leaked the story to the media.
Agreed. If that's what the law says, then the law is woefully outdated.
However, Mannings defense and First Amendment advocates expressed concern about the aiding-the-enemy charge, saying it could convert almost any leak of classified information to the media into an aiding-the-enemy case since terrorist groups have access to most media reports and websites via the Internet.
Derp. He is painted as a criminal because he broke conditions of his employment and in doing so also broke the law.
Its seems rather stupid to argue for the release of information of unjust acts of the government through illegal means.
You must not believe there can ever be a whistleblower then. There aren't many businesses/agencies that don't have non-disclosure agreements and those that don't don't have much worth hiding.
Many of the crimes of the US of A have been released by whistleblowers. Including the Tuskegee experiments on African Americans and their families.
That's Mengele levels of depravity being conducted by our own government for 40 years until someone acted illegally and blew the whistle on it all.
http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/jul/tuskegee/
This kid loses on being a whistleblower by not specifically blowing the whistle on a crime such as Snowden did with specific unconstitutional NSA spying programs and instead dumping a mass downloading of classified documents.
Your contempt for whistleblowing however is equally as despicable.
How can he not be guilty of aiding the enemy?
He leaked massive amounts of information to the public, which is, undoubtedly, the enemy of the MIC and the most transparent administration in history.
Short answer. Whistleblowing does not involve breaking the law. Releasing information about a company or an employer that is damaging is one thing. Breaking the law to do it is quite another.
Let's form a commission to study these mythical enemies! We'll need some sort of building in which to meet, perhaps a nice tower like -Or we could just stop waging wars against mythical enemies hiding in every dark corner causing a level of hysteria and paranoia that's reached such a fevered pitch as to give certain factions of the government the political fortitude enough to piss all over the 4th amendment and spy on 99% of the American public.
This was no different than releasing information to a newspaper that could also be read by the enemy. Changing the law to accommodate the possibility that the enemy could be aided by any release of information to any type of media outlet simply means any release of information would carry a life or death sentence.
From the article:
They are exactly right.
Well said.This guy released what, 250K pages of information? He couldn't have even read it all himself before releasing it. Think about that. He had no idea what damage it might or might not cause.
If we don't want to have classified information, then we should disband our military entirely. You can't have a military and not classify any information. On the other hand, if you DO think we should have classified information but think Manning should not be penalized, then please explain yourself. Manning released a mountain of information here. If he isn't prosecuted, it's a virtual guaranty that no one else ever will, which is functionally identical to having no classified information to begin with.
So in your twisted little world only private companies can have any whistleblowing done against them but the State and Federal government, no matter how wrong what they are doing is, like the real world example I already gave you with syphilis experiments is off limits.
But when you release classified information you aren't blowing a whistle, you are simply breaking the law.
So just to be clear, if Obama was selling our nuclear technology to China in exchange for debt forgiveness and he classified that information as top-secret, you would support the incarceration of any American who uncovered that information and leaked it to the public? How about if Obama had secret death panels which he used to take out top political opponents?
Your stance is that no matter what the government does, no matter how vile, evil and depraved, we as citizens have no right to know? All I can say is WOW!
How about you share your full name, DOB, SS number, full address along with your addresses going back 15 years, your employer and their address along with your email address and any you may have used in the last 10 years along with your favorite color, your mother's maiden name and the make of your first car?He should be let out with credit for time served. He didn't hurt anybody. He embarassed some politicians and bureaucrats who like to hide their dirty laundry. Our government is way too secretive about what it does and far too invasive in monitoring what we do.
You are OK with using illegal acts to combat illegal acts.
ABSOLUTELY. If someone would have illegally murdered Stalin or Hitler, I think that person would have been a hero.
illegally murdered
ABSOLUTELY. If someone would have illegally murdered Stalin or Hitler, I think that person would have been a hero.
I believe Manning had the right intent, but absolutely wrong execution. Where there things that absolutely needed public attention? Damn right. Did he go about it the right way? Nope.
While he is a "whistleblower" in a sense that his goal was bring to justice and light the wrongs that superiors were doing, he released things he shouldn't either. To have been a good whistleblower is not to just give out everything. But to state to the public that there are illegal or less than legal actions being done by military leaders. Do that in a public fashion. When asked for proof, go through the proper channels of legal redress that are ALLOWED to look at any obtained information Manning had access to. These would be 3rd party legal experts that could act upon the allegations correctly and properly.
My opinion is that verdicts were correct per the actions taken by Manning. He wasn't intending to aid the enemy by his actions, although in some circumstances he indirectly did. But his actions were the absolute wrong way to go about whistleblowing.
ABSOLUTELY. If someone would have illegally murdered Stalin or Hitler, I think that person would have been a hero.
This.
I'm less of a Bradley Manning sympathizer than I used to be. He released 250k diplomatic cables. He had no clue what was in those cables. If he had just released the AH-64 video, or a few documents with the intention of bringing attention to some kind of wrongdoing, I would be completely on his side.
Do I think he deserves life or even 20 years? No. I don't think he acted out of malice, I just think he was misguided. But I do think what he did was wrong, and he should be punished for it.
I believe Manning had the right intent, but absolutely wrong execution. Where there things that absolutely needed public attention? Damn right. Did he go about it the right way? Nope.
While he is a "whistleblower" in a sense that his goal was bring to justice and light the wrongs that superiors were doing, he released things he shouldn't either. To have been a good whistleblower is not to just give out everything. But to state to the public that there are illegal or less than legal actions being done by military leaders. Do that in a public fashion. When asked for proof, go through the proper channels of legal redress that are ALLOWED to look at any obtained information Manning had access to. These would be 3rd party legal experts that could act upon the allegations correctly and properly.
My opinion is that verdicts were correct per the actions taken by Manning. He wasn't intending to aid the enemy by his actions, although in some circumstances he indirectly did. But his actions were the absolute wrong way to go about whistleblowing.
Note to all future whistleblowers: This is what you get for revealing US war crimes.