Bradley Manning verdict

[mistercrabby]

Even Manning's Dad thinks he's a dirtbag!!

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/06/us/manning-father-interview/index.html

 

[palehorse]

Even Manning's Dad thinks he's a dirtbag!!

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/06/us/manning-father-interview/index.html

That's because PFC Manning IS a dirtbag.

 

[Acanthus]

Sorry, he doesn't deserve to be called a whisleblower. That is only reserved for those who didn't agree to not release secret information as a part of their specifications for employment. Doesn't matter what he released. This isn't a case of the ends justify the means.

So where is the line?

You work for the government with top secret clearance. You find out they are poisoning babies to force population control in the US and making it look like SIDS. Is it okay then?

At some point people are going to have a conscience.

I understand the governments position of making examples of these people, but at the same time i can empathize with the people leaking the information too.

 

[Acanthus]

All I can say is WOW back. You are OK with using illegal acts to combat illegal acts. Two wrongs make a right? Anything for the greater good?

Absolutely when it comes to whistleblowers.

One can argue that what Manning did was more than whistleblowing, but to say that it is unacceptable under any circumstance to reveal horrible secrets is both hilarious and scary at the same time.

 

[Nebor]

Absolutely when it comes to whistleblowers.

One can argue that what Manning did was more than whistleblowing, but to say that it is unacceptable under any circumstance to reveal horrible secrets is both hilarious and scary at the same time.

I don't think he revealed anything too horrible. He did compromise the United State's diplomatic position with several nations, and provide a ton of intelligence to the enemies of our country though.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I don't think he revealed anything too horrible. He did compromise the United State's diplomatic position with several nations, and provide a ton of intelligence to the enemies of our country though.

A that intelligence has since contributed to deaths of people.

 

[Acanthus]

I don't think he revealed anything too horrible. He did compromise the United State's diplomatic position with several nations, and provide a ton of intelligence to the enemies of our country though.

I think there is no question that he recklessly published more information than he could possibly have read, found important, and redacted, but he was also promised that wikileaks would do that.

To be clear: I do not side with Bradley Manning. Edward Snowden is a fucking hero, though.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

A that intelligence has since contributed to deaths of people.

Could I get one example? I'm serious I'm not supposed to look at thus stuff : p Did he releave mappings of routes previously untouched that where then bombed?

 

[waggy]

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.

though after how the government has gone after both snowden and manning You won't see another wistleblower who does it how they should.

When your government will go to illegal extremes to get you to shut up i would be worried about what will happen.

Both are whistleblowers. Yes manning went about it the wrong way. Both are exposing things that should not be happening and for that i am grateful.

 

[unokitty]

I see don't see Manning the same way that I see Snowden.

To me, Snowden seems to be a classic whistle blower in the same vein as Daniel Ellsberg.

In contrast, I see Manning as more of a screw up. Someone that, by accident, got into a place where they had access to secure information and couldn't handle it. More akin to John Anthony Walker than Daniel Ellsberg.

When asked why he had sold crypto codes to the Russians, Walker replied "I'm a thief. If I had worked at a bank, I would have stole money." He was also quoted as saying that "Kmart has better security that the US Navy."

In a similar way, Manning is just a screw up. He was a screw up before he got into the Army. He was a screw up when he was in training at Fort Hachuca. He was a screw up when he cold contacted Andrian Lamo. And he'll be a screw up when he's in prison.

Just because his screwing up included sharing classified information with Wikileaks doesn't make him a hero.

Uno

 

[Zargon]

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.

LOL that would never be allowed to happen

the biggest SHAM of all this, is that the people prosecuting him for the diplomatic calbe leaks do the same thing as a PR stunt all the time.

if the military could be trusted to govern itself that ah64 crew and the spotters would have been in trouble already

but they werent

the cables detailing how shitty we treat our allies are harmful to us sure, but so were our actions already

do I agree he shouldnt have mass released stuff he hadnt read? ab-so-fucking-lutely

do I think he has already served more hard time than he should? ab-so-fucking-lutely

we shoved him in solitary, mostly naked, for 1000+ days before he even went to trial

absolutely despicable. hes a freakin US CITIZEN for gods sake

I see don't see Manning the same way that I see Snowden.

To me, Snowden seems to be a classic whistle blower in the same vein as Daniel Ellsberg.

In contrast, I see Manning as more of a screw up. Someone that, by accident, got into a place where they had access to secure information and couldn't handle it. More akin to John Anthony Walker than Daniel Ellsberg.

When asked why he had sold crypto codes to the Russians, Walker replied "I'm a thief. If I had worked at a bank, I would have stole money." He was also quoted as saying that "Kmart has better security that the US Navy."

In a similar way, Manning is just a screw up. He was a screw up before he got into the Army. He was a screw up when he was in training at Fort Hachuca. He was a screw up when he cold contacted Andrian Lamo. And he'll be a screw up when he's in prison.

Just because his screwing up included sharing classified information with Wikileaks doesn't make him a hero.

Uno

you are really likening manning to walker? thats stupid. like....seriously....providng specfics on naval warface tactics and weaponry to an active and engaged enemy is nothing like releasing a video of us killing civilains indescriminately, and some diplomatic cables that put egg on our face

though I agree that snowden did something great and if I were him, after watching what the gov is doing to manning, (and journos etc) I would have ran too

 

[palehorse]

I see don't see Manning the same way that I see Snowden.

To me, Snowden seems to be a classic whistle blower in the same vein as Daniel Ellsberg.

That MIGHT have been true had he not also started talking about foreign activities that have nothing to do with domestic (US) civil liberties.

 

[Acanthus]

That MIGHT have been true had he not also started talking about foreign activities that have nothing to do with domestic (US) civil liberties.

Like hacking the infrastructure (even hospitals) of our foreign allies?

That is pretty fucking shitty. IMO they have a right to know.

I think the core argument between people on Snowden are ethics vs law.

One side feels that writing laws requiring secrecy doesn't give a nation the right to gross misconduct on its own citizens and allies.

The other side feels that the law can supercede all ethical violations, no matter how severe.

Manning on the other hand is a lot cloudier. He released a lot of information indiscriminately.

 

[palehorse]

Like hacking the infrastructure (even hospitals) of our foreign allies?

That is pretty fucking shitty. IMO they have a right to know.

I wholeheartedly disagree -- they have no "right" to know. Is there a Global Constitution or Global Bill of Rights that I'm not aware of? Or perhaps just an International Cyber Code of Conduct that the US has signed?

You may philosophically disagree with the activities, but there are certainly no treaties or other agreements in place that address this issue, specifically -- even amongst "allies."

That said, who do you consider an ally? I can name only four that could/should qualify.

Manning on the other hand is a lot cloudier. He released a lot of information indiscriminately.

Agreed.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Snowden/Manning both deserve time, but the level of vitriol directed at Manning disturbs me. His intent was in the right place even though he was an idiot. Whereas Snowden was just high on himself and got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Most of what he revealed isn't as bad as people take it to be.

 

[Acanthus]

I wholeheartedly disagree -- they have no "right" to know. Is there a Global Constitution or Global Bill of Rights that I'm not aware of? Or perhaps just an International Cyber Code of Conduct that the US has signed?

You may philosophically disagree with the activities, but there are certainly no treaties or other agreements in place that address this issue, specifically -- even amongst "allies."

That said, who do you consider an ally? I can name only four that could/should qualify.

I think we could argue that to infinity though.

We haven't signed any international treaties that say that we can't send up a probe to space to direct an asteroid into capital cities either. That does not give anyone the right to do so.

The us considered hacking of their networks to be an act of war. Then we turn around and do it to all of our allies.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/us-go...-act-of-war-then-hacks-allies/article/2532594

 

[palehorse]

I think we could argue that to infinity though.

We haven't signed any international treaties that say that we can't send up a probe to space to direct an asteroid into capital cities either. That does not give anyone the right to do so.

The us considered hacking of their networks to be an act of war. Then we turn around and do it to all of our allies.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/us-go...-act-of-war-then-hacks-allies/article/2532594

I would argue that only one EU nation could/should be considered a trusted ally -- and even those we deem "trusted" should be kept at arm's length for purposes of self-preservation.

Edit:

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies." -- George Washington

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

A that intelligence has since contributed to deaths of people.

/sound of crickets chirping

Been asked for proof twice about this statement....hmmmmmmmmm

 

[EagleKeeper]

A that intelligence has since contributed to deaths of people.

/sound of crickets chirping

Been asked for proof twice about this statement....hmmmmmmmmm

Best you ask the countries and intelligence services that were effected.
How much Intel was not forewarded to us that could have saved lives.

 

[mistercrabby]

Good point Eagle.

Some of the posts suggest that if one intentionally fires a gun into a crowd and no one is killed, its Okey-dokey.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Best you ask the countries and intelligence services that were effected.
How much Intel was not forewarded to us that could have saved lives.

So you got nothing....duly noted. Maybe you should stop making things up and posting them as facts?

 

[palehorse]

So you got nothing....duly noted. Maybe you should stop making things up and posting them as facts?

What makes you think that such information, if it exists, is (or should be) available to the general public?

It's really easy to accuse him of lying when you know that's it's impossible for him to back up his claim without access to, and the revealing of, classified data.

In other words, you're both guessing; so, neither of you can claim to be right, or accuse the other of being wrong.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Best you ask the countries and intelligence services that were effected.
How much Intel was not forwarded to us that could have saved lives.

So you got nothing....duly noted. Maybe you should stop making things up and posting them as facts?

There is a difference between having nothing; and being able to reveal information.

Manning and Snowdon revealed information that they should not have.
One is on the run; the other heading for prison for life.

Neither is a situation that I desire.


You apparently feel that it is okay to allow people to get killed based on your principles or right/wrong; :thumbsdown:

I do not.

 

[mistercrabby]

Yep, you always want a pimply 23 year old PFC with an unsettled gender identity deciding whether to release sensative diplomatic and military secrets. While you're at it, give him the nuclear launch codes.:biggrin:

 

[unokitty]

Group petitions for Manning to receive Nobel Peace Prize

I suspect that this nomination is less an endorsement of Manning and more of a rebuke of the status quo...

I further suspect that Manning has done as much damage as he is likely too.

Consequently, I'm less concerned with his potential for future damage and more concerned with a system that granted Manning a security clearance and put him in a position to download and distribute gigabytes of secure data.


Uno