You should also stick to subjects that you're capable of discussing. Read up about Daniel Ellsberg before foisting another utterly useless piece of noise here.I would like to add that it doesn't matter what his intentions were or were not. He was working with secrets and knew better. He broke the law. Was tried and convicted and sentenced and should serve that time.
I also agree that Chelsea will be just as screwed up as Bradley.
You should also stick to subjects that you're capable of discussing. Read up about Daniel Ellsberg before foisting another utterly useless piece of noise here.
Hint: He's the guy who leaked top secret documents and has been praised by people like Barack Obama.
If you can't come up with something more substantive than stuff like this I think I'll pass on responding from now on.The subject isn't about Ellsberg anyway. How many times are you going to throw this one pitiful case around.
Thanks for not reading my post above — where Ellsberg compared his case to Manning's in more than one way.It isn't even comparable to Mannings case.
If you can't come up with something more substantive than stuff like this I think I'll pass on responding from now on.
Thanks for not reading my post above — where Ellsberg compared his case to Manning's in more than one way.
You're not even trying. When you make the effort to say something I'll respond. If you want to say something you're going to need to do a lot more reading.
There are few things more despicable than people who are content to have someone's life thrown away because of their ignorance and arrogance. That's called demagoguery.
I think this sets a terrible legal precedent for future accountability. Now every legal defense, for like actions, is going to invoke the "Manning" example. This is a bad deal, but typical move for Obama. He should have left this one alone.
I would like to add that it doesn't matter what his intentions were or were not.
Manning did not have any reason to do what he did other than out of spite and revenge for being slighted in his opinion.
Hmmmmmm.
Bradly Manning's actions via Wikileaks directly exposed the names, locations, and families of US allies in at least Afghanistan.
Blood is most certainly on Manning's hands.
Assertions and Questions:
- WikiLeaks Reportedly Outs 100s of Afghan Informants
Hundreds of Afghan civilians who worked as informants for the U.S. military have been put at risk by WikiLeaks' publication of more than 90,000 classified intelligence reports which name and in many cases locate the individuals- Afghan leaks expose the identities of informants
...put at risk by the leaking of 90,000 intelligence documents because the files identify informants working with Nato forces.- Taliban Study WikiLeaks to Hunt Informants
A spokesman for the Taliban told Britain’s Channel 4 News on Thursday that the insurgent group is scouring classified American military documents posted online by the group WikiLeaks for information to help them find and “punish” Afghan informers.- Taliban Murders Afghan Elder, Thanks Wikileaks for Revealing "Spies"
Over 70 other tribal elders receive death threats, U.S. Congressman calls on death penalty for leaker Manning
This case / story is not so simple nor innocent as people like to claim.
- David Leigh of England's Guardian newspaper has leveled a shocking accusation against Mr. Assange
Assange: 'They're informants... if they get killed, they deserve it'
A silence fell on the table as the reporters realised that the man the gullible hailed as the pioneer of a new age of transparency was willing to hand death lists to psychopaths.- Assange has always maintained he never said this
John Goetz provided a signed witness statement affirming that the remark was not made.
The US is not going to pardon someone who purposefully leaked large amounts of top secret material and then went to go be the guest of a hostile foreign power for several years. If he wants a pardon he's going to have to come back and face the music.
Might do well to remember that Obama and Biden threatened pretty much every nation that would offer Snowden sanctuary. No diplomacy as such, just world crushing power and arrogance, and it worked except for Russia. Consequently his choices were limited to that nation.
Telling nations that the US will react negatively if they harbor people we consider to be traitors sounds like the dictionary definition of diplomacy to me. Also, on what planet is it arrogance to be angry at other countries for harboring traitors? The height of arrogance would be doing this sort of thing and expecting to get away with it without consequences.
If Snowden didn't realize he was going to have to go live in a power that's hostile to the US after doing what he did then he put even less thought into his leaking than its haphazard nature already indicated. This was an entirely foreseeable outcome and so he gets no reprieve for being 'forced' into it.
Why is the right outraged about this? Our president elect thinks it's a-okay for foreign governments to hack the computers of his political enemies and release their secrets. His only crime seems to be that he's not Russian.
Telling nations that the US will react negatively if they harbor people we consider to be traitors sounds like the dictionary definition of diplomacy to me. Also, on what planet is it arrogance to be angry at other countries for harboring traitors? The height of arrogance would be doing this sort of thing and expecting to get away with it without consequences.
-snip-
How is Assange a traitor? Hell, he isn't even a US citizen.
Fern
Best prof ever that the hack story was a lie and more then likely a DNC internal leak.
Obama's Chelsea Manning 'Pardon' Proves The "Russian Election Hack" Story Was One Big Lie
Certainly Manning’s intelligence leak is magnitudes worse a leak (in relation to US national security) than the John Podesta emails, that have the entire US establishment up in arms and pleading for a heavy retaliation.
Keep in mind that Chelsea Manning has pleaded guilty and admitted to the intelligence breach. No evidence has ever been provided to the public that proves the Russian state was behind the Podesta or DNC document leak.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...s-russian-election-hack-story-was-one-big-lie
How is Assange a traitor? Hell, he isn't even a US citizen.
Fern
How is Assange a traitor? Hell, he isn't even a US citizen.
Fern
Fair enough. How about:So, werepossum, that is 0-4 for your claims.
Indiscriminate? Nope.
Loss of life? Nope.
Likely to result in loss of life? Nope.
Not altruistic? Nope.
Maybe you should stick to talking about topics you know something about.
Obviously not as authoritative as Manning claiming that his motives were pure, but still.A State Department official contended in court on Friday that convicted soldier Bradley Manning's leaks of classified diplomatic cables led to foreign informants being moved over fears for their safety.
The official, Michael Kozak, was called by U.S. military prosecutors to testify in the sentencing phase of Manning's court-martial over the purported damage done by anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks' publication in 2010 of hundreds of thousands of documents and video it received from the Iraq-based soldier.
But Kozak would not say how many people were moved or put at risk, saying he felt that information was classified.
Pressed by Judge Colonel Denise Lind to explain why she should not treat his assessment as hearsay, Kozak acknowledged: "It's not the kind of thing I can put a precise measure on."
The judge ordered Kozak's testimony to continue behind closed doors to discuss specific cases.
Kozak, a former ambassador to Belarus, told the court on the third day of Manning's sentencing hearing that his office was involved at least twice with foreign informants who had to be moved because there was "very genuine concern" they would be killed by "non-state actors" because of the leaks.
Kozak said the WikiLeaks publication had a "chilling effect" on people who were working to "promote the advancement of human rights" in their country.
That's three quarters of a million classified documents. Do you really want to argue that Manning did anything more than a dump of everything he could access, without even a cursory examination to determine whether someone named might be in danger? In what way could that possibly be noble or altruistic?Embarrassing or not, the publication of the leaks rocked the U.S. government, with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying the release of the material threatened the lives of Americans and damaged foreign relationships.
Prosecution witnesses have testified Manning downloaded and leaked 400,000 Pentagon field reports from Iraq and 90,0000 similar documents from Afghanistan. There evidence also was presented that he downloaded and leaked more than 250,000 State Department cables.
Let us assume that absolutely no informants directly died from Manning's leak. How many do you suppose stopped being informants after the names of confidential informants were published on the Internet?The Afghan war logs contained over 900 names, many of whom were already dead by the time the information was leaked. Carr also said he wasn't aware of anyone dying from the Iraq logs information, either, after the U.S's 10-month, $6.2 million dollar investigation. But Carr himself clarified that he stood by the assertion that the leaks had the potential to endanger lives, and to have an impact on U.S. intelligence work. He, speaking as a witness for the prosecution, said that the U.S. lost informants and supply lines because of the leaks. Another witness, John Kirchhofer, described an angry scene with NATO reps following the leak (via the LA Times):
“There were some unpleasant comments directed at me and some accusations directed at the U.S.,” he said. “They were aggressive. People got chesty.”