http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -detention (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/22/bradley-manning-wikileaks-1000-days-detention)
QuoteOn Saturday Bradley Manning will mark his 1,000th day imprisoned without trial. In the course of those thousand days, from the moment he was formally put into pre-trial confinement on 19 May 2010 on suspicion of being the source of the WikiLeaks disclosures, Manning has been on a long and eventful journey.
It has taken him from the desert of Iraq, where he was arrested at a military operating base outside Baghdad, to a prison tent in Kuwait. From there he endured his infamous harsh treatment at Quantico Marine base in Virginia, and for the last 14 months he has attended a series of pre-trial hearings at Fort Meade in Maryland, the latest of which begins next week.
For the small band of reporters who have tracked the prosecution of Private First Class Manning, the journey has also been long and eventful. Not in any way comparable, of course; none of us have been ordered to strip naked or put in shackles, and we have all been free to go home at night without the prospect of a life sentence hanging over us.
But it's been an education, nonetheless. Though we are a mixed bag – a fusion of traditional outlets such as the Washington Post and Associated Press and new-look bloggers such as Firedoglake and the Bradley Manning support network – we have been thrown together by our common mission to report on the most high-profile prosecution of an alleged leaker in several decades.
There's something else that binds us – disparate though our reporting styles and personal politics might be – and that's the daily struggle to do our jobs properly, confronted as we are by the systemic furtiveness of the US government. It's an irony that appears to be lost on many of the military lawyers who fill the courtroom at Fort Meade. A trial that has at its core the age-old confrontation between a government's desire for confidentiality and the public's need to know, is itself being conducted amid stringent restrictions on information.
None of the transcripts of the court martial procedure have been released to us. No government motions to the court have been published. David Coombs, Manning's lead lawyer, has had to plead to be allowed to post his defence motions, and when he has been granted permission he has often been forced to redact the documents to an almost comical degree.
The most egregious example of this over the past 1,000 days was the moment in January when the military judge, Colonel Denise Lind, issued her ruling in an Article 13 motion brought by Manning's defence. This was the complaint that the soldier, while at Quantico, had been subjected to a form of pre-trial punishment that is banned under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
It was an important moment in the narrative arc that is the Bradley Manning trial. Technically, Lind had the power to dismiss all charges against the soldier; she could have, though none of us expected that she would, let him walk out of that court and into freedom. (In the end she knocked 112 days off any eventual sentence).
The accusations contained in the Article 13 also went to the heart of the defence case that Manning has singled out for unfair and at times brutal treatment. During the testimony, Manning himself gave evidence, standing inside a 6ft by 8ft (180cm by 240cm) box that had been drawn on the floor of the courtroom to replicate the dimensions of his cell. He recalled such humiliating details as the routine he was required to follow when he needed toilet paper. Standing to attention at the front bars of his cell, he was ordered to shout out to the guards who kept him under 24-hour observation: "Lance Corporal Detainee Manning requests toilet paper!"
So my fellow reporters and I awaited with intense interest Lind's judgment, though also with some trepidation. We'd sat through the spectacle of Lind reading out to the court her rulings, and it wasn't a pleasant experience. The judge has a way of reading out her decisions at such a clip that it is almost impossible to take them down even with shorthand or touch typing.
In the event, Lind spent an hour and a half without pause reading out a judgment that must have stretched to 50 pages, at a rate that rendered accurate reporting of it diabolically difficult. No copy of the ruling has – then or now – been made available to the public, presumably on grounds of national security, even though every word of the document had been read out to the very public that was now being withheld its publication.
Such is the Alice-in-Wonderland world of the Bradley Manning trial. Why does it matter? It matters to Bradley Manning. The soldier is facing charges that carry the stiffest punishment available to the state short of killing him. (They could technically do that to him too, but the prosecution has made clear it will not seek the death penalty). If found guilty of the most serious charge – "aiding the enemy" – he could be confined to military custody for the rest of his life with no chance of parole, a prospect that makes the past 1,000 days look like a Tea Party.
The least Manning deserves is stringent fairness in his prosecution, and stringent fairness cannot exist in the absence of openness and transparency. As a British appeal court judge wrote in a recent case brought by the Guardian to protest against excessive courtroom secrecy: "In a democracy, where power depends on the consent of the governed, the answer must lie in the transparency of the legal process. Open justice lets in the light and allows the public to scrutinise the workings of the law, for better or for worse."
There's a much bigger reason why the cloak-and-dagger approach of the US government to this trial should be taken seriously. America doesn't seem to have woken up to this yet, but the prosecution of Bradley Manning poses the greatest threat to freedom of speech and the press in this country in at least a generation.
The "aiding the enemy" count essentially accuses Manning of handing information to Osama bin Laden as a necessary consequence of the act of leaking state secrets that would end up on the internet. When one of the prosecution lawyers was asked whether the government would still have gone after Manning had he leaked to the New York Times instead of WikiLeaks, she unhesitatingly replied: "Yes".
If that's not a threat to the first amendment, then what is? This prosecution, as it is currently conceived, could have a chilling effect on public accountability that goes far beyond the relatively rarefied world of WikiLeaks.
That's something worth contemplating as Bradley Manning enters his second 1,000 days sitting in a cell. Looked at this way, we're sitting in the cell with him.
So, what do you think of Bradley Manning? Is he a hero or a traitor? How can the goverment justify what it's doing to him?
First off, he's a traitor. I think his intentions were good, but the way he did it could have led to national security issues. These were documents on a secret system that he then moved over to a non-secure system. This is a major violation of thing. He should have taken those documents to his chain of command, or possibly congress so he could actually use the whistle blower defense.
Secondly, the United States isn't doing this to him, his legal team is. They keep trying to come up with new defenses and skirt around things. They are the ones delaying his trial, not the US government.
For what it's worth, according to Noam Chomsky, the biggest reason for secrecy in governments is to hide truth from its citizens, not the enemy. I tend to agree, not that I'm saying it's OK to give secrets to the enemy, of course. But from what I can tell, Manning's efforts amounted mostly to leaking embarrassing stuff about politicians that were little more than things we could gossip about, and things that did not paint them with the rosy brush they would prefer.
Having said that, I don't understand why he did it. He should have known better than to piss off the power structure. You can't do that and not expect retribution.
I missed these leaks. Could the documents aid an enemy in exploiting America in any way?
To anyone concerned about the opacity of the government Bradley is a hero and the government's treatment of him and his trial is a confirmation of everything they fear.
Quote from: "wolf39us"I missed these leaks. Could the documents aid an enemy in exploiting America in any way?
Some of the gossipy tidbits made it to the media. Nothing I saw would aid the enemy. That's not saying some critical stuff was not filtered from or by the media. Wikileaks supposedly printed all of it. I read some of it but quickly got bored and couldn't make it through most of it. There was a lot of negative stuff from Western countries, as well as Arab countries, about other Arab countries, but I'm sure that leaders in offended countries would know that others were saying things behind their backs without having to read it in Wikileaks. The bulk of the juicy stuff was just personal emails from one politician to another that was never meant for public consumption.
They should let him go.
At the very least on bail
What Bradley Manning did was wrong and he should have served some time for it. Now, he deserves to go free. He leaked a large amount of information to an outside source and despite how relevant that information was, the fact of the matter is that he was an active member of the military and broke the law.
But the tactics they have used against Bradley Manning the entire time they have held him in goes against our Bill of Rights in more ways than one. If they had gone through the judicial process properly I would have no problem if Manning went to prison for a few years. But our government is not currently interested in providing an actual case against Manning. They are looking to scare the shit outta anyone that is considering speaking out against them. No one wants to be in the same position that manning has been put in, it's a gigantic scare tactic.
Quote from: "commonsense822"What Bradley Manning did was wrong and he should have served some time for it. Now, he deserves to go free. He leaked a large amount of information to an outside source and despite how relevant that information was, the fact of the matter is that he was an active member of the military and broke the law.
But the tactics they have used against Bradley Manning the entire time they have held him in goes against our Bill of Rights in more ways than one. If they had gone through the judicial process properly I would have no problem if Manning went to prison for a few years. But our government is not currently interested in providing an actual case against Manning. They are looking to scare the shit outta anyone that is considering speaking out against them. No one wants to be in the same position that manning has been put in, it's a gigantic scare tactic.
I couldn't have said it better. What really bothers me about this is that the government is making an example out of him and tossing due process and a whole bunch of other laws right out the Window without even batting an eye. As if our judicial system and rights only apply if and when the government chooses.
One thing that seemed strange to me was that most of it was political gossip meant for "your eyes only." Why did the government amass this stuff in one large data base that was so easy to get to? If I emailed or received something for "your eyes only," I might save it to a personal file in case I ever needed it, but I wouldn't let it get into a common data base.
He's a hero under torture. Whistleblowers are heroes in spite of this Administration's actions.
He's both a hero and a traitor. He's a traitor to the government but a hero to the country.
His leaks embarrassed the US by exposing our crimes. None of his leaks provided actual aid and comfort to the enemy, but they did provide a "see we were right about the US" to anyone - friend or foe - that opposed the US war machine.
1000 days without a trial is a clear violation of the right to a speedy and public trial, even taking into consideration the fact that he is in military custody instead of civilian custody. Charges should be dismissed on that basis.
I see two issues here, most of you seem to think that he's a hero for leaking the documents and should protected by whistleblower laws. Issue with that is how he did it. Secondly, you are talking like he isn't getting due process. He very much is. The thing that keeps delaying his trial is that the defense keeps changing things up, which then must be turned over to the prosecution to get familiar with and argue against it. The latest was the whistle blower defense that was rejected. I will agree that he was treated poorly when he was at Quantico, and the judge in the case has already had him moved and will reduce his sentence some because of it.
The Nobel Prize Committee should take the award they gave to Drone-Strike Obama and give it to Manning for bravely exposing war crimes at great personal risk.
He is a traitor because that is a legal term. The government comes up with the definition, and even though Manning did the right thing he fits the legal definition. He did what he did - disobey the Government - out of loyalty to Constitution and Country.
He gave comfort and aid to the enemy while the country is at war and he was serving in the armed forces.
Legally the government can summarily execute his ass if they choose. In times of war we used to put guys like him in front of a firing squad the moment we found out their crimes.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"He is a traitor because that is a legal term. The government comes up with the definition, and even though Manning did the right thing he fits the legal definition. He did what he did - disobey the Government - out of loyalty to Constitution and Country.
This is very true, but doing the right thing ina wrong way is still wrong.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"The Nobel Prize Committee should take the award they gave to Drone-Strike Obama and give it to Manning for bravely exposing war crimes at great personal risk.
He is a traitor because that is a legal term. The government comes up with the definition, and even though Manning did the right thing he fits the legal definition. He did what he did - disobey the Government - out of loyalty to Constitution and Country.
I completely agree. I couldn't believe when they gave Obama a Nobel for.....getting elected while being black? Seriously that's all I could come up with.
Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"He is a traitor because that is a legal term. The government comes up with the definition, and even though Manning did the right thing he fits the legal definition. He did what he did - disobey the Government - out of loyalty to Constitution and Country.
This is very true, but doing the right thing ina wrong way is still wrong.
Is it the wrong way because it's illegal? If so I better tell those Chinese dissidents that they're wrong.
Yeah, he's legally a traitor, but what he did was right. Legally he should be punished, but legally he also has the right to a trial. The way he's being treated is a fucking joke and a miscarriage of justice. Of course, I don't know much about military tribunals, so I'm talking out of my ass here, but I would assume that most soldiers charged with someone get a trial sooner than he has.
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"He is a traitor because that is a legal term. The government comes up with the definition, and even though Manning did the right thing he fits the legal definition. He did what he did - disobey the Government - out of loyalty to Constitution and Country.
This is very true, but doing the right thing ina wrong way is still wrong.
Is it the wrong way because it's illegal? If so I better tell those Chinese dissidents that they're wrong.
Yeah, he's legally a traitor, but what he did was right. Legally he should be punished, but legally he also has the right to a trial. The way he's being treated is a fucking joke and a miscarriage of justice. Of course, I don't know much about military tribunals, so I'm talking out of my ass here, but I would assume that most soldiers charged with someone get a trial sooner than he has.
Think about it this way, someone molests and kills my kid. I have the evidence for it but instead of letting the police do their job I take justice into my own hands. Am I right or wrong?
As you admit to talking out of your ass, I would first learn what the situation is before you comment on it.
Quote from: "Alaric I"Think about it this way, someone molests and kills my kid. I have the evidence for it but instead of letting the police do their job I take justice into my own hands. Am I right or wrong?
As you admit to talking out of your ass, I would first learn what the situation is before you comment on it.
Those are completely different issues.
Now now, CommonSense, you know Conservative types need their straw-man arguments. Without them, the Conservatives have nothing to use.
Quote from: "Martin Luther King Jr."One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Quote from: "Alaric I"Think about it this way, someone molests and kills my kid. I have the evidence for it but instead of letting the police do their job I take justice into my own hands. Am I right or wrong?
As Commonsense822 said, you're talking about a completely different issue, but let's discuss it anyways:
In such a situation, if you had 100% concrete evidence (let's say...a unaltered videotape of the incident), and you took justice into your hands you may be right morally, but not legally. Morally right and legally right are not always the same, otherwise there would have been no such thing as slavery or discrimination, which during their time were legally right.
Would I still expect you to get tried and convicted? Yes. Would I have qualms if you were convicted after trial? No, though I would hope they would see your tragedy as a mitigating factor. Would I have issues if they held you for a long ass time without a trial? Yes, I would. Would I object if there were reports that you were being treated in a less than humane manner? Yes.
QuoteAs you admit to talking out of your ass, I would first learn what the situation is before you comment on it.
Talking out my ass about how long it takes for a soldier imprisoned by the military to go to trial. I know, due my brother, that for civilian cases it may take awhile, but on average it's not more than 6-7 months. If anyone has any info on how long it takes for a soldier to go from arrest to military tribunal then it would be much appreciated.
Ask some of the guys in Guantanamo how long it takes to get a trial. I am going to guess that even they have it better than Manning.
The existence of police in your analogy makes it completely invalid.
A better analogy would be if the police raped and killed my daughter. In that case, yeah I would take the law into my own hands as I would have no reliable alternative.
Quote from: "commonsense822"Quote from: "Alaric I"Think about it this way, someone molests and kills my kid. I have the evidence for it but instead of letting the police do their job I take justice into my own hands. Am I right or wrong?
As you admit to talking out of your ass, I would first learn what the situation is before you comment on it.
Those are completely different issues.
No they aren't. We are talking about the law and taking it into your own hands. You assertain that it is correct for him to break the law because of the evidence presented. I assertain that he broke the law and therefore did it wrong. What he should have done is brought this evidence to the attention of the congress and let them investigate.
Quote from: "SvZurich"Now now, CommonSense, you know Conservative types need their straw-man arguments. Without them, the Conservatives have nothing to use.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "commonsense822"Quote from: "Alaric I"Think about it this way, someone molests and kills my kid. I have the evidence for it but instead of letting the police do their job I take justice into my own hands. Am I right or wrong?
As you admit to talking out of your ass, I would first learn what the situation is before you comment on it.
Those are completely different issues.
No they aren't. We are talking about the law and taking it into your own hands. You assertain that it is correct for him to break the law because of the evidence presented. I assertain that he broke the law and therefore did it wrong. What he should have done is brought this evidence to the attention of the congress and let them investigate.
Bring the evidence of the congress members' own gossip to the attention of those same congress members? The leaked documents were
their documents. That's like finding emails that prove that your boss is cheating on his wife with his secretary, and then bringing that evidence to him and telling him to fix it. It's a complete conflict of interest.
We (the people) do
NOT work for congress members. They work for
US. We voted them in and their work is supposed to reflect our needs. So when they do fucked up shit, we should be the ones that know because we are the ones giving them the positions. The American people should not be misinformed about their elected leaders.
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Quote from: "Alaric I"Think about it this way, someone molests and kills my kid. I have the evidence for it but instead of letting the police do their job I take justice into my own hands. Am I right or wrong?
As Commonsense822 said, you're talking about a completely different issue, but let's discuss it anyways:
No it's not. It addresses taking the law into your own hands and trying to find justice in an incorrect way.
QuoteIn such a situation, if you had 100% concrete evidence (let's say...a unaltered videotape of the incident), and you took justice into your hands you may be right morally, but not legally. Morally right and legally right are not always the same, otherwise there would have been no such thing as slavery or discrimination, which during their time were legally right.
My point exactly. He did the right thing morally, but the wrong thing legally.
QuoteWould I still expect you to get tried and convicted? Yes. Would I have qualms if you were convicted after trial? No, though I would hope they would see your tragedy as a mitigating factor. Would I have issues if they held you for a long ass time without a trial? Yes, I would. Would I object if there were reports that you were being treated in a less than humane manner? Yes.
Nobody is disputing this.
QuoteQuoteAs you admit to talking out of your ass, I would first learn what the situation is before you comment on it.
Talking out my ass about how long it takes for a soldier imprisoned by the military to go to trial. I know, due my brother, that for civilian cases it may take awhile, but on average it's not more than 6-7 months. If anyone has any info on how long it takes for a soldier to go from arrest to military tribunal then it would be much appreciated.
First off we are not talking about a tribunal, we are talking about a Courts Martial. The first step is an article 32 hearing, sort of like a pre-trial hearing, which will determine whether or not they are able to stand trial. The article 32 hearing started on DEC 16 2011 and lasted until FEB 3 2012. Since then his legal team has submitted different defenses, which then all evidence must be turned over to the prosecution for them to build a case around. A judge rejected a dismissal because of this. Now I'm no lawyer so I am not going to try to say it's wrong or wrong, but it seems to me the defence may have set this up as a tactic seeing how Manning is royaly screwed in this case.
Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "SvZurich"Now now, CommonSense, you know Conservative types need their straw-man arguments. Without them, the Conservatives have nothing to use.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Son, you don't know me, nor my background well enough to make such a bold claim as that. Read my sig. Note the name before Conservative. That man deserves your respect.
Quote from: "SvZurich"Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "SvZurich"Now now, CommonSense, you know Conservative types need their straw-man arguments. Without them, the Conservatives have nothing to use.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Son, you don't know me, nor my background well enough to make such a bold claim as that.
I'm not your damn son, and if I was I'd kill myself out of sheer embarrassment. Second, you made a dumbass bold claim without knowing me and that is what I was responding to. It doesn't matter how well I know for me to tell you that you don't know what you are talking abpout in that one statement I responded to.
[-X Alaric, you joined my home on the web a mere 5 days ago and are off to a good start with 233 posts. I have nearly a decade here with over 34,000 posts you may look through. Be nice, or go away. 8-)
Quote from: "SvZurich"[-X Alaric, you joined my home on the web a mere 5 days ago and are off to a good start with 233 posts. I have nearly a decade here with over 34,000 posts you may look through. Be nice, or go away. 8-)
Well I am fairly easy to get along with as long as you don't make assupmtions about me. That is my hot button.
Ditto pilgrim. Just know that I grew up a huge fan of Reagan and Bush 1, came to realize just how much I had been lied to by them during the end of Bush 1's term, and have grown more liberal since. I was raised thinking FDR and Lincoln were two of the biggest traitors to this nation, and know them to be its greatest heroes now. Since realizing Sky Daddy is a myth and acknowledging my sexuality, I've experienced more than my fair share of hate from Reich Wing lies, and I react to them openly like a Table 1 element dropped into water. I still think Barry Goldwater was a good man.
Quote from: "SvZurich"Ditto pilgrim. Just know that I grew up a huge fan of Reagan and Bush 1, came to realize just how much I had been lied to by them during the end of Bush 1's term, and have grown more liberal since. I was raised thinking FDR and Lincoln were two of the biggest traitors to this nation, and know them to be its greatest heroes now. Since realizing Sky Daddy is a myth and acknowledging my sexuality, I've experienced more than my fair share of hate from Reich Wing lies, and I react to them openly like a Table 1 element dropped into water. I still think Barry Goldwater was a good man.
Sweet, I stay pretty centered. Both sides make good points, but I think they makes some stupid arguments and come up with some stupid ideas. As far as I'm concerened we need to preserve our constitution, yet need to make a few modifications to ensure that everyone has total freddom. I also think we need to go to a 100% democratic society as this republic stuff is killing us.
I am a fan of Democratic Socialism. Protect and educate the people, give them incentives to work hard and a piece of the prize, and thrive.
Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"He gave comfort and aid to the enemy while the country is at war and he was serving in the armed forces.
It's quite telling that many people here think the People of the United States are the enemy are the enemy of the Government of the United States.
QuoteHis leaks embarrassed the US by exposing our crimes. None of his leaks provided actual aid and comfort to the enemy, but they did provide a "see we were right about the US" to anyone - friend or foe - that opposed the US war machine.
He is a fucking hero. and has paid a terrible price for it already (bangs gavel, case closed)
Quote from: "commonsense822"Quote from: "Martin Luther King Jr."One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
First, this.
Second, if its the law who broke the law, who is suppose to hold them accountable? The only thing you can do in that situation is expose the truth and continue to tarnish their rep.
But insulting him because the corrupt leaders passed laws to protect their corruption, and HE is the bad guy because he broke those rules... I just don't get that.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"He gave comfort and aid to the enemy while the country is at war and he was serving in the armed forces.
It's quite telling that many people here think the People of the United States are the enemy are the enemy of the Government of the United States.
Other way around.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "commonsense822"Quote from: "Martin Luther King Jr."One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Second, if its the law who broke the law, who is suppose to hold them accountable? The only thing you can do in that situation is expose the truth and continue to tarnish their rep.
But insulting him because the corrupt leaders passed laws to protect their corruption, and HE is the bad guy because he broke those rules... I just don't get that.
This is why he is both. He did the right thing in the wrong way. I think a lot of people in Congress would ahve done something about it, it would at least get media attention without exposing this stuff in a way it should not have been done.
Quote from: "Alaric I"This is why he is both. He did the right thing in the wrong way. I think a lot of people in Congress would ahve done something about it, it would at least get media attention without exposing this stuff in a way it should not have been done.
I'm sorry but I think you are misguided here. Again, the documents that were leaked were
from Congress. The documents didn't have really much or any material that was actually related to national security. They were mostly gossip between and about the members of Congress, and other global leaders. Nothing that said, "here is where the troops are!" These documents show the underside of the political game that is played not just nationally but internationally as well. Bringing to the attention of the Congress members the underhanded ways those same Congress members act is a complete conflict of interest, and it very likely that they would do absolutely nothing about it to protect their own asses. To think otherwise is simply naive thinking.
Secondly, how much have you seen the mainstream media talking about Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, or Bradley Manning? Very little. Despite the fact that this directly affects their jobs because it is about our 1st Amendment rights to a free press.. This is because the mainstream media is no longer concerned with breaking a story (like WikiLeaks did), they are only interested in getting face time with politicians, and it could also be because talking about WikiLeaks is in some ways an admission that someone outside the current new organizations was able to break a story (even several stories) better than they can. Admitting that what Assange did was journalism, is to discredit their own ability at journalism.
The leaked info was not going to, and in fact didn't, affect our national security at all. The only thing it was going to affect was some Congress member's election cycle. Some bad stuff was revealed about them, so they discredit Assange and Manning as traitors to try and regain their credibility, and to some degree it has worked.
Everything has been bought out in this country. The politicians, the media, the corporations, etc. Even WikiLeaks, which runs on donations, has had the ability to accept donations completely crippled by the corporate financial institutions that have decided that WikiLeaks cannot use their services in an attempt to try and bleed them dry for money. What are these corporations' reason for blockading WikiLeaks? The leaked documents show how easily are politicians are bought by these institutions, and so giving that info to the American people is bad business all around.
Quote from: "commonsense822"Quote from: "Alaric I"This is why he is both. He did the right thing in the wrong way. I think a lot of people in Congress would ahve done something about it, it would at least get media attention without exposing this stuff in a way it should not have been done.
I'm sorry but I think you are misguided here.
Oh the irony.
Manning is corporate America's (and other nations) sacrificial lamb as the 'traitor' who must be imprisoned as a 'spy' forever or until the political class decides otherwise. It's clear the US military is no longer accountable to the public nor, for that matter are politicians nor police who serve the rich and punish the poor. Of course not all politicians, members of military nor police feel the same, but as long as they work for them they are to a degeee guilty of complicity.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Manning is corporate America's (and other nations) sacrificial lamb as the 'traitor' who must be imprisoned as a 'spy' forever or until the political class decides otherwise.
Although I agree he is most definitely a sacraficial lamb, I'm not sure what the proper punishment should be. He did leak some info that could be damaging to the soldiers, but at the same time the enemy lacked the equipment to really have any use of this info.
QuoteIt's clear the US military is no longer accountable to the public
They never were, they are accountable to the President, the President in turn is accountable to the public.
QuoteOf course not all politicians, members of military nor police feel the same, but as long as they work for them they are to a degeee guilty of complicity.
I disagree. That would allege knowledge of such acts, which few would have this knowledge.
Quote from: "Alaric I"Quote from: "commonsense822"Quote from: "Alaric I"This is why he is both. He did the right thing in the wrong way. I think a lot of people in Congress would ahve done something about it, it would at least get media attention without exposing this stuff in a way it should not have been done.
I'm sorry but I think you are misguided here.
Oh the irony.
Indeed....
When Obama first came into office he was asked if he would support a truth commission. He said no and he wouldn't prosecute those that were involved with torture either. Now we know that he will support imprisonment of those that expose crimes that never should have been covered up. I haven't seen all the information but what I saw doesn't involve endangering allies; instead it involves exposing crimes. We already know the Iraq war was based on lies and we don't prosecute the mass murders who got us into that.
This is a crock.
The truth according the commercial media and the government is a selective amount of propaganda. the real truth seems to be available in the library and the web if you sort through the crap.
After Bradley Manning's statement, I am of the firm belief that he acted in the best interest of the American public, to include his fellow soldiers, and to innocent humans caught in war-torn areas that are constantly facing the ever-looming threat of becoming collateral damage. A disgusting term, it dehumanizes individuals, turning them into numbers instead of living, breathing people. The American government has become an empire, hell-bent on controlling others through multiple means, worst of all being direct force. The government no longer represents the people, it no longer has the interest of the people in mind. It is repulsive to think of how many atrocities have committed against people throughout the world, killing to spread "peace and democracy" when we don't even practice it as a nation.
Bradley Manning's statement during pretrial:
//http://www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/wikileaks/bradley_manning/pfc_bradley_e_manning_providence_hearing_statement.html#update
What he did is nothing compared to what they have done to him.
Quote from: "Minimalist"What he did is nothing compared to what they have done to him.
Agreed. I can't believe someone is going probably get life for being a whistle blower.
There needs to be much more protection of whistle blowers worldwide. There have been some shocking scandals here in the UK with people (for example) shining a light on terrible malpractices within the NHS and other organisations only to be effectively cast out and bullied by their employers.
The U.S. govt. is breaking their own laws to hold him in prison without a trial. That should give you a hint which side is the "traitor".
Manning exposed corruption and lies to the benefit of all Americans. The traitors are the ones holding him in prison for exposing their treachery.
In this day of extreme political corruption, one would have to be a special kind of gullible sheep to believe Manning is a traitor.
We need more people like Manning. Way more.
No one was arrested over the Halliburton scandal; they got away with actual treason.
QuoteThe U.S. govt. is breaking their own laws to hold him in prison without a trial. That should give you a hint which side is the "traitor".
Not anymore, they aren't. It is 100% legal by American law to hold citizens without charge or trial indefinitely.
Quote from: "Shiranu"QuoteThe U.S. govt. is breaking their own laws to hold him in prison without a trial. That should give you a hint which side is the "traitor".
Not anymore, they aren't. It is 100% legal by American law to hold citizens without charge or trial indefinitely.
The Constitution says otherwise.
Quote from: "Special B"Quote from: "Shiranu"QuoteThe U.S. govt. is breaking their own laws to hold him in prison without a trial. That should give you a hint which side is the "traitor".
Not anymore, they aren't. It is 100% legal by American law to hold citizens without charge or trial indefinitely.
The constitution says otherwise.
And the people who enforce it and interpret say it IS legal, and that's ultimately what matters.
Quote from: "Shiranu"And the people who enforce it and interpret say it IS legal, and that's ultimately what matters.
It is what matters but not what is actually legal.
Of course the actual law doesn't help Manning. The government is above the law. That doesn't mean they aren't breaking it.
The 21st Century's John Brown.
QuoteThey hung him for a traitor, they themselves the traitor crew
If the government is violating laws and treaties then someone needs to speak up. 1000 days in jail for pointing that out while the people that violated the law walk free.
Quote from: "Alaric I"First off, he's a traitor.
Oh look! It's the other way of spelling patriot.