Wikileaks traitor withering away

[Throckmorton]

No Afghan informants have been killed as a result of Manning.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/16/wikileaks.assessment/index.html?hpt=T2







You have no evidence that Manning leaked the Afghan war documents with the intention of harming Afghan informants or even the knowledge they would have been in danger. The fact you jump to that conclusion shows how biased you are.


So the correct answer would be:

Manning 0

US government 5,000-10,000+

He knew he was leaking thousands of documents and that they contained information like that.

The claim about no sensitive information is damage control. The usual claims by Wikileaks supporters that there's "no evidence" is ridiculous. How many individual Afghan killings do we find out about? Exactly. It's a non sequitur to say there's "no evidence" that anybody has been killed as a result of the leaks, when we know that the names of anti-Taliban "collaborators" were released, and that the Taliban stated it was going to target those people. And why wouldn't they?

If somehow ALL of those individuals who the Taliban officially considers traitors deserving death were kept safe by our military, that's a testament to the ability of our military, nothing else. It sure as hell doesn't excuse the act of ratting them out, which was inherently wrong.

 

[Throckmorton]

Nice ninja edit.

How do you know that he is not a whistleblower? Because he has been painted one way? I'll reserve judgment myself. One thing is certain in my mind, sexual abuse of children is at the top of the list of bad shit.

Some people got embarrassed? so what? Who is dead because of these leaks? Some nuclear scientists in Iran? Maybe? Maybe unrelated? Who the fuck cares.

Show me 1 credible news article showing an american soldier is dead because of these leaks. Don't show me some aristocrat said some embarressing things in private and now they aren't private anymore because I dont give a shit about that.

Why is it so fucking difficult for you to see that releasing the identities of traitors to the Taliban, an organization that kills traitors, is deeply unethical?

Following your logic, you could rat out Vietnam POWs trying to send messages, and unless there's "evidence" that they were tortured as a result your conscience would be clean.

As a matter of fact, following your logic, you could rile up the American far right with rhetoric about taking back our country and communists and nazis and foreign Muslim presidents and death panels... and as long as there's "no evidence" of someone actually committing an act of violence as a result, your conscience would be clean.

 

[PrinceofWands]

As for my opinion, the guy's getting what he deserves. I'm sorry if the punishment for massive acts of treason, from a solider who is subject to military justice, isn't as cuddly as he hoped. He made his bed, now he's welcome to lay in it, and has no right or justification to get off easy.

I didn't read the part where he was tried and found guilty of something already. Must have missed that.

 

[JSt0rm]

Why is it so fucking difficult for you to see that releasing the identities of traitors to the Taliban, an organization that kills traitors, is deeply unethical?

Show me.

Following your logic, you could rat out Vietnam POWs trying to send messages, and unless there's "evidence" that they were tortured as a result your conscience would be clean.

No. But that sounds like a good movie.

As a matter of fact, following your logic, you could rile up the American far right with rhetoric about taking back our country and communists and nazis and foreign Muslim presidents and death panels... and as long as there's "no evidence" of someone actually committing an act of violence as a result, your conscience would be clean.

But there is evidence just a couple weeks ago. That is called sedition. Totally different then this leak. One man's whistleblower is another mans traitor. Thats just how it is.

After all those leaks and the mass media in the pocket they cant give you one article with proof of a actual negative impact? LOL.

 

[Throckmorton]

Show you that it's unethical to release the identities of traitors to the Taliban?


I don't understand how you'd expect to see proof of a "negative impact". Are there logs of every death in Afghanistan and the cause? The only positive proof would be the Taliban leaving a note saying "We didn't know this man was a traitor, but we found out because of Wikileaks, so we killed him, just FYI". LOL.

Not sure what's so difficult to understand about the ethics. Releasing those names was unethical. Period. Just like Sarah Palin's rhetoric is unethical (not sedition and not illegal). Yet there's "no evidence" that the violent Tea Party rhetoric has lead to actual violence. That was the right wing mantra after the Arizona shooting. No evidence. No evidence. No evidence. No evidence that violence is directly caused by violent political rhetoric. No link! No evidence! And you're joining in.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The Army has enough evidence to justify his detention and pending court martial. I feel quite certain he will spend the rest of his life in a military prison. He will receive a dishonorable discharge upon completing his sentence.

 

[fed3r2198]

He knew he was leaking thousands of documents and that they contained information like that.

Do you know if he read every single document? Do you know who he leaked the documents to?

The claim about no sensitive information is damage control. The usual claims by Wikileaks supporters that there's "no evidence" is ridiculous. How many individual Afghan killings do we find out about? Exactly. It's a non sequitur to say there's "no evidence" that anybody has been killed as a result of the leaks, when we know that the names of anti-Taliban "collaborators" were released, and that the Taliban stated it was going to target those people. And why wouldn't they?

Yeah because I'm sure if an Afghan informant was killed it wouldn't be all over the news and used to paint Assange & Manning as Taliban colaberators and murderers.

No, its not a non-sequitur. You're claiming that Manning is sinister because informants have been killed, without any proof and contrary to what Sec. Gates has said. I'm pointing out how ridiclous that is when you look at how many innocents have been slaughtered by the US in comparison.

If somehow ALL of those individuals who the Taliban officially considers traitors deserving death were kept safe by our military, that's a testament to the ability of our military, nothing else. It sure as hell doesn't excuse the act of ratting them out, which was inherently wrong.

Yeah I'm sure the military has their villages locked down like the rest of the country.

 

[Kadarin]

Best news I've heard all week. This traitor needs to do the country a favor and kill himself so we can save some cash. We're in a deficit, you know. Come on, do the right thing and kill yourself, asshole.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/02/01/wikileaks.manning/index.html?hpt=T2

Of what crime has he been convicted in a court of law (or even a military court under the UCMJ)?

 

[Throckmorton]

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/30/taliban-says-it-will-target-names-exposed-by-wikileaks.html

"We knew about the spies and people who collaborate with U.S. forces," he continued. "We will investigate through our own secret service whether the people mentioned are really spies working for the U.S. If they are U.S. spies, then we know how to punish them."
...
The militant group is known to execute informants, reports Channel 4, by hanging, beheading, and shooting. It has even, on one recent occasion, strapped "two alleged traitors to explosives before detonating them in public."

JSt0rm, please explain the logical hoops you have to jump through to convince yourself that leaking the names of allied collaborators to an organization that murders collaborators is not unethical.

 

[JSt0rm]

Show you that it's unethical to release the identities of traitors to the Taliban?


I don't understand how you'd expect to see proof of a "negative impact". Are there logs of every death in Afghanistan and the cause? The only positive proof would be the Taliban leaving a note saying "We didn't know this man was a traitor, but we found out because of Wikileaks, so we killed him, just FYI"? LOL.

Not sure what's so difficult to understand about the ethics. Releasing those names was unethical. Period.

You have boxed yourself into a tiny little corner here.

Let's assume that the Taliban killed informants. And you hold the lives of those informants above the sexual mistreatment of children at the hands of American corporations? Why? The war on terror? Hmm?

I like how Russia handled shit. The airport was back open 3 hours later. Not us no. We get attacked and we wage war for decades all over the planet. Fucking pathetic.

I'm gonna go ahead and take a guess that informants and agents provocateurs will be killed in war time regardless of wikileaks documents. Show me one article that weighs the negative effects (the real ones) against the positives.

Hell the mainstream media didnt even report on the actual leaks. They just reported about wikileaks leaking the leaks. Weakness.

 

[Throckmorton]

Oh and BTW, there's "no evidence" that the "Tiller the Killer" rhetoric about that abortion doctor lead to his murder. No evidence! No direct link! Nothing unethical at all unless there is evidence! No evidence! Squawk!!!

 

[JSt0rm]

Oh and BTW, there's "no evidence" that the "Tiller the Killer" rhetoric about that abortion doctor lead to his murder. No evidence! No direct link! Nothing unethical at all unless there is evidence! No evidence! Squawk!!!

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Throckmorton]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/01/bill-oreilly-crusaded-aga_n_209665.html

The right was adamant that the Bill O'Reilly's campaign against the abortion doctor, calling him Tiller the Baby Killer, did not lead to his murder. They repeated the same "no evidence" mantra.

 

[JSt0rm]

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/30/taliban-says-it-will-target-names-exposed-by-wikileaks.html




JSt0rm, please explain the logical hoops you have to jump through to convince yourself that leaking the names of allied collaborators to an organization that murders collaborators is not unethical.

Yes I've seen that article before. Now show me a article where that has actually happened. I would think the Taliban would be very interested in leaking this information as the knee jerk reactionaries and chicken hawks would be all over it.

 

[JSt0rm]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/01/bill-oreilly-crusaded-aga_n_209665.html

The right was adamant that the Bill O'Reilly's campaign against the abortion doctor, calling him Tiller the Baby Killer, did not lead to his murder. They repeated the same "no evidence" mantra.

Do you want to start another thread? We are talking about wikileaks and private manning.

 

[Throckmorton]

You have boxed yourself into a tiny little corner here.

Let's assume that the Taliban killed informants. And you hold the lives of those informants above the sexual mistreatment of children at the hands of American corporations? Why? The war on terror? Hmm?

I like how Russia handled shit. The airport was back open 3 hours later. Not us no. We get attacked and we wage war for decades all over the planet. Fucking pathetic.

I'm gonna go ahead and take a guess that informants and agents provocateurs will be killed in war time regardless of wikileaks documents. Show me one article that weighs the negative effects (the real ones) against the positives.

Hell the mainstream media didnt even report on the actual leaks. They just reported about wikileaks leaking the leaks. Weakness.

I didn't paint myself into a corner. I said the information about the boylove was a good leak.

If Manning was a whistleblower, he wouldn't have dumped a massive cache of documents without knowing what was in them. He would have only leaked the things that needed to be leaked, information about unethical activities that needed to be stopped.

 

[Throckmorton]

Do you want to start another thread? We are talking about wikileaks and private manning.

It's directly parallel "no evidence" argument.

 

[JSt0rm]

It's directly parallel "no evidence" argument.

No its not.

The reason its not is because the good doctor was killed.

Show me on the internet where the informants were touched by the bad terrorists.

Infact there are articles that show that no informants were killed as posted 1 page back.

how bout now brown cow?

 

[Throckmorton]

No its not.

The reason its not is because the good doctor was killed.

Show me on the internet where the informants were touched by the bad terrorists.

Infact there are articles that show that no informants were killed as posted 1 page back.

how bout now brown cow?

So if the doctor wasn't killed, or if we just didn't know about it, would that somehow excuse Bill O'Reilly? Or was putting him in danger unethical in the first place?
And do you think the Tea Party's rhetoric will only become immoral once it results in violence that we can prove is directly caused by that rhetoric?

IF no informants were killed, why is that? Because the Taliban is suddenly forgiving? Or because they're unable to exact vengeance?

If the Taliban are unable to exact vengeance, how does that make it any more ethical to release those names in the first place?

You never answered my question. Would it not be unethical for me to leak Woody Harrelson's address, even if no harm comes to him or his family as a result?

 

[JSt0rm]

You never answered my question. Would it not be unethical for me to leak Woody Harrelson's address, even if no harm comes to him or his family as a result?

Is woody harrelson selling 8 year old boy ass to 35 year old men?

 

[fed3r2198]

So if the doctor wasn't killed, or if we just didn't know about it, would that somehow excuse Bill O'Reilly? Or was putting him in danger unethical in the first place?

Reporting on something isn't unethical. The murderer in this case is this unethical person.

IF no informants were killed, why is that? Because the Taliban is suddenly forgiving? Or because they're unable to exact vengeance?

Since you are claimed to know and judged Manning responsible for causing harm to Afghans why don't you provide us with your evidence supporting your original stance that informants have been killed?

If the Taliban are unable to exact vengeance, how does that make it any more ethical to release those names in the first place?

Yes.

You never answered my question. Would it not be unethical for me to leak Woody Harrelson's address, even if no harm comes to him or his family as a result?

Is the only thing you're leaking Woody Harrelson's private information? If so then no that leak isn't justified. If however that information is part of evidence of crimes and corruption then yes that leak is justified.

 

[gingermeggs]

Dude you need to increase your meds, Srly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNX4nLvIP0Q&NR=1

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

There has been not military cout martial at this point.

He has been arrested; enough evidence was presented to a military judge to hold him for a court martial and he was ordered to be in a certain location. Isolation may be safer for him then the general population.

Actual evidence may not be revealed to the public at the discression of the military court overseen by the JAG.

How the military operates is differently than the civilian system and what you see on Law & Order.

For more details, contact Don Vito - he was a JAG officer

I've been summoned!

In general pretrial confinement is very unusual in the military, even for very serious crimes, and if it's imposed without a clear legal basis the prosecutor ends up paying the price. (As an aside, I once recommended to a commander that he restrict a pretrial Airman to base (not to jail, just to base) after he had stolen two diamonds and taken one of them to Korea to propose to his girlfriend, and the judge ended up giving him five-days-credit-to-one-restricted against his sentence, holding that it was done without a sufficient basis - that still sticks in my craw!)

My experience has been that military jails are much cleaner and safer than their civilian counterparts. That said, solitary confinement takes a psychological toll on inmates and I don't doubt this guy is hurting. It seems to me it's reasonable to restrict his contact with others based on the nature of the offense in this situation, however.

Military members have the same speedy-trial rights as civilians - military members have to be tried within 120 days of the preferral of charges unless they waive the right. Here, he was charged in May and has been in the clink ever since, so I gather he has waived speedy trial. This is quite common.

As far as I am aware no charges have been presented to a judge in this case. The charges are initially preferred by the member's commander, then referred to an Article 32 hearing (similar to a grand jury), where a recommendation is made with respect to whether the charges should go forward. I don't believe that has happened yet in this case. Even if the Article 32 officer (an experienced JAG who may or may not be a judge) recommends that the charges be dismissed, they can still be referred to trial by the member's commander. Assuming, as in this case, that the charges are of felony-level severity, the referring commander must be a general (hence the name General Court-Martial).

The case will, most likely, end up with either a plea negotiation or a litigated trial. The defendant chooses either a trial to the judge or a trial by members (aka jury). Because Manning is enlisted he can request a panel of members consisting of no less than 1/3 enlisted members, with the rest being officers. In my experience military juries are thoughtful and generally better-educated than their civilian counterparts. I do believe it's a fair system and he will get a fair trial. This particular trial will likely be nonpublic due to the classified nature of the evidence, and the prosecutor, defense attorney and judge will all need to be people with sufficient security clearances to hear the evidence.

Interestingly, unlike pretty much any civilian jurisdiction, there are no sentencing guidelines in the military, so his minimum sentence is always no punishment, regardless of the severity of the crime - the UCMJ just imposes maximum sentences. E.g., there is a ceiling but not a floor. The defendant can then ask the general who convened the court to reduce his sentence. There is an automatic appeal process and the defendant receives experienced defense counsel on the appeal (just as he did at trial) free of charge.

If anyone's curious, Manning's actual charge sheet is at http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2010/07/manning070510.pdf.

 

[gingermeggs]

Did you know that poor little gay victim withering Bradley Manning was demoted for punching someone in the face, or that he has thrown chairs and shouted at higher ranking soldiers?


The military seriously fucked up in not kicking him out from the beginning, in 2008, when he posted Youtube videos about classified facilities.

If that's true, people higher up then manning are more responsible them him even- but you get what u pay for I guess, a cheap assed, insubordinate army with lots of friendly fire!
They all play wayyyyy tooo much modern warfare 2 for my liking!!!!!!

 

[gingermeggs]

I've been summoned!

In general pretrial confinement is very unusual in the military, even for very serious crimes, and if it's imposed without a clear legal basis the prosecutor ends up paying the price. (As an aside, I once recommended to a commander that he restrict a pretrial Airman to base after he had stolen two diamonds and taken one of them to Korea to propose to his girlfriend, and the judge ended up giving him five-days-to-one-restricted against his sentence, holding that it was done without a sufficient basis - that still sticks in my craw!)

My experience has been that military jails are much cleaner and safer than their civilian counterparts. That said, solitary confinement takes a psychological toll on inmates and I don't doubt this guy is hurting. It seems to me it's reasonable to restrict his contact with others based on the nature of the offense in this situation, however.

Military members have the same speedy-trial rights as civilians - military members have to be tried within 120 days of the preferral of charges unless they waive the right. Here, he was charged in May and has been in the clink ever since, so I gather he has waived speedy trial. This is quite common.

As far as I am aware no charges have been presented to a judge in this case. The charges are initially preferred by the member's commander, then referred to an Article 32 hearing (similar to a grand jury), where a recommendation is made with respect to whether the charges should go forward. I don't believe that has happened yet in this case. Even if the Article 32 officer (an experienced JAG who may or may not be a judge) recommends that the charges be dismissed, they can still be referred to trial by the member's commander. Assuming, as in this case, that the charges are of felony-level severity, the referring commander must be a general (hence the name General Court-Martial).

The case will, most likely, end up with either a plea negotiation or a litigated trial. The defendant chooses either a trial to the judge or a trial by members (aka jury). Because Manning is enlisted he can request a panel of members consisting of no less than 1/3 enlisted members, with the rest being officers. In my experience military juries are thoughtful and generally better-educated than their civilian counterparts. I do believe it's a fair system and he will get a fair trial. This particular trial will likely be nonpublic due to the classified nature of the evidence, and the prosecutor, defense attorney and judge will all need to be people with sufficient security clearances to hear the evidence.

Interestingly, unlike pretty much any civilian jurisdiction, there are no sentencing guidelines in the military, so his minimum sentence is always no punishment, regardless of the severity of the crime - the UCMJ just imposes maximum sentences. E.g., there is a ceiling but not a floor.

If anyone's curious, Manning's actual charge sheet is at http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2010/07/manning070510.pdf.

I like your angle here Don, you make not judgment about the situation or assume he's guilty.
Certainly, you make a lot of these jokers look like raving lunatics. Sir, I commend you!