Manning case moving forward (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

TheHeretic -> Manning case moving forward (12/17/2011 4:39:08 PM)

Personally, I think they ought to have treason on the charges list, with the death penalty on the table, but it is what it is. He's facing life in prison, stripped of all rank and pay, with a dishonorable discharge if they ever let him out.

FORT MEADE, Maryland (Reuters) - Bradley Manning, the suspected source of the largest leak of classified U.S. documents in history, spent his 24th birthday in military court on Saturday listening to investigators detail how they pieced together the case against him.

As presented in this article, about all he has a defense is that he was in a difficult place, emotionally. Considering that he could have violated DADT at any time, and pranced off with an (easily upgraded later) general discharge, should this even be given a scond of consideration as a mitigating factor in his case?



farglebargle -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/17/2011 5:01:05 PM)

I think the real defense, which might not be allowed by the military court, is federal protection as a whistleblower.

When Manning broke the story of the US Company selling young boys to Afghan Police forces for use as sex slaves, he became one of the "Good Guys" ( as opposed to those who would use US Security as a cover for selling young boys as sex slaves, who are I think everyone agrees "Bad Guys" )

If you think Bradley Manning was wrong, does that mean you think that Jerry Sandusky was right? Manning fought against exactly the kind of exploitation which Sandusky is accused of....



tazzygirl -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/17/2011 5:08:27 PM)

If that was all the proof he had leaked, then I would agree, fargle. Didnt he just randomly give up everything he could?



farglebargle -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/17/2011 5:14:37 PM)

I think the ends of putting an end to corporate sponsorship of pedophiles justify the means of broader citizen oversight of our government.

If they're not doing anything wrong they have nothing to worry about, n'est-ce pas?



InvisibleBlack -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/17/2011 6:00:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
When Manning broke the story of the US Company selling young boys to Afghan Police forces for use as sex slaves, he became one of the "Good Guys" ( as opposed to those who would use US Security as a cover for selling young boys as sex slaves, who are I think everyone agrees "Bad Guys" )


Was Manning aware of the Dynacorp child slavery scandal (i.e. was that the driving factor in his releasing the information) when he released the documents? I'm not saying he wasn't - I just don't recall seeing anything that said it was his primary reason. As I dimly recall, his big issue was the video of the helicopter assault on the van containing children.



farglebargle -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/17/2011 7:13:17 PM)

Well, so now we're arguing about what criminal and/or immoral acts Manning was revealing, which itself shows there's enough to fall under the whole "The Ends Justify The Means" justification we've adopted as a standard.



InvisibleBlack -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/17/2011 8:17:28 PM)

No, actually, I'm curious about whether he was driven to leak the issue based on his horror at finding out that a government contractor was engaged in child prositition/slavery, or whether something else inspired him and it was only later after someone else read the documents that the Dynacorp details came out. This more a question out of personal interest/curiousity than it was the legal/moral ramifications of the Manning case but nevermind.

If you want to discuss morals and ethics ... okay, I'm good with that. Are you claiming that there is no relevance in relating the harm caused by the leak vs. the good done by it? That if these 250,000+ documents only revealed some minor pucuniary activities, it would justify revealing NATO's list of sensitive targets worldwide publically? Surely any moral system would have some criteria for measuring/justify harm vs. good? Or are you arguing that there are unchanging eternal absolutes and some actions are so morally wrong that they should be prevented no matter the consequences or cost?



erieangel -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/17/2011 8:30:50 PM)

I have to wonder about the "costs" and "harm" you are referring to.  From everything I've read on the Manning case, even the Sec. of Defense and CIA agree that the documents Manning released were low level classified information and nobody came to harm because they were made  public.



MasterG2kTR -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/17/2011 8:55:30 PM)

The government will try to whitewash the whole thing by painting Manning as a traitor and/or spy while they cover up and hush all the wrong doings of theirs that he did reveal, like the helicopter incident. When it's all done it will smack of conspiracy from top to bottom. Manning will simply be the scapegoat in all of it.



tweakabelle -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/17/2011 8:55:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

I have to wonder about the "costs" and "harm" you are referring to.  From everything I've read on the Manning case, even the Sec. of Defense and CIA agree that the documents Manning released were low level classified information and nobody came to harm because they were made  public.

You make a pertinent point. Weren't the documents either close to or at the lowest possible security rating, a rating so low that something in excess of 2,000,000 Govt. employees had access to them?

In this day and age, can we really call anything that is so readily accessible by so many people "secret"?



TheHeretic -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/17/2011 9:02:19 PM)

Treason for the hell of it, Invisible. He had no idea what all he had.




InvisibleBlack -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/17/2011 9:18:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

I have to wonder about the "costs" and "harm" you are referring to.  From everything I've read on the Manning case, even the Sec. of Defense and CIA agree that the documents Manning released were low level classified information and nobody came to harm because they were made  public.


Actually, I believe the release of these cables was (overall) a good thing - and I've been on the side of WikiLeaks since the onset. I'm one of those "free and open information" sorts, I'm also a pragmatist, however, so I recognize there are limits. I'm on the "weigh the costs and the benefits and then do the best you can" side.

However - what I was discussing in the previous post wasn't the details of this particular case - I was trying to determine the underlying principle which farglebargle was working from. My general modus operandi is to work out the overall ethical principles first and then apply them to specifics. So - is the underlying principle that one weighs the good vs. the bad and then makes a decision based on the relative harm vs. good or is the principle that certain actions or events are, a priori, of such weight that no cost/price/impact is beyond consideration if it stops them. If the former, then we need to weigh the overall impact of the leaks as a whole vs. the potential for positive change. If the latter, then we need to determine which acts are of such profound weight and how this determination is made - especially, who can be trusted to make this determination.

Be that as it may and to answer your question, there are certain cables and memos leaked that I would have withheld or redacted. As I understand it (and bear in mind, I'm by no means an expert on the assorted details of all of the massive data released) amongst the leaks were the U. S. State Department 2009 Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative, which is a compilation of installations and infrastructure worldwide that it considered critical to protect U.S. interests from terrorists. I see no benefit to releasing this information and the potential for an enormous amount of harm. Also, later on, a completely unredacted complete set of the cables was released publically and the password to the archive was published by The Guardian. This contained the names and locations of a number of informants, agents and contacts of the U. S. military and State Department worldwide. This puts the lives of the people metioned in these cables at risk. This is potentially thousands of people.

Wouldn't it have been better to pull the individual documents describing the most egregious issues and cleanly release them? Or, again, is a principle (in this case "open information") of such importantance that there is no argument against it? No price too great to bear? As I said, I'm on the cost vs. benefit side, but I know that any number of respected figures throughout history have disagreed with me.


"...we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
 
- John F. Kennedy



InvisibleBlack -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/17/2011 9:21:47 PM)

Having now spent a couple of hours reading up on these events again - the Dyncorp scandal did not surface until later on - it was the WikiLeaks/media people who found that. Manning was, apparently, unaware of it. It was the helicopter footage that first inspired him to start copying things and releasing them.

(Also, as an aside, Dyncorp has a long history of such scandals - they should have been shut down a long time ago. They've obviously got somebody in their pocket.)



farglebargle -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/17/2011 10:44:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack

No, actually, I'm curious about whether he was driven to leak the issue based on his horror at finding out that a government contractor was engaged in child prositition/slavery, or whether something else inspired him and it was only later after someone else read the documents that the Dynacorp details came out. This more a question out of personal interest/curiousity than it was the legal/moral ramifications of the Manning case but nevermind.

If you want to discuss morals and ethics ... okay, I'm good with that. Are you claiming that there is no relevance in relating the harm caused by the leak vs. the good done by it? That if these 250,000+ documents only revealed some minor pucuniary activities, it would justify revealing NATO's list of sensitive targets worldwide publically? Surely any moral system would have some criteria for measuring/justify harm vs. good? Or are you arguing that there are unchanging eternal absolutes and some actions are so morally wrong that they should be prevented no matter the consequences or cost?


Fundamentally, I think we're going to be disagreeing on the basic premise that my tax dollars should be used to do anything which I am deprived 100% knowledge and oversight of. While I'm sure that for limited times, there is tactical intelligence which during a time of war is very sensitive. I don't quite believe we're there, despite the war-on-blank rhetoric we hear so often.



thompsonx -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/18/2011 4:58:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Treason for the hell of it, Invisible. He had no idea what all he had.



How do you know this? Are you god?



InvisibleBlack -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/18/2011 9:20:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Treason for the hell of it, Invisible. He had no idea what all he had.



How do you know this? Are you god?


Ray - when someone asks you if you're a god, you say YES!
 
[:D]



truckinslave -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/19/2011 7:09:38 AM)

quote:

You make a pertinent point. Weren't the documents either close to or at the lowest possible security rating, a rating so low that something in excess of 2,000,000 Govt. employees had access to them?

In this day and age, can we really call anything that is so readily accessible by so many people "secret"?


1,999,999 people were trustworthy.



truckinslave -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/19/2011 7:11:29 AM)

quote:

They've obviously got somebody in their pocket.)


Richard Armitage, who wears the strongest, deepest, slickest teflon suit known.



mnottertail -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/19/2011 7:16:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

You make a pertinent point. Weren't the documents either close to or at the lowest possible security rating, a rating so low that something in excess of 2,000,000 Govt. employees had access to them?

In this day and age, can we really call anything that is so readily accessible by so many people "secret"?


1,999,999 people were trustworthy.


Or alternatively, involved in the cover-up.



Aylee -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/19/2011 8:26:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Personally, I think they ought to have treason on the charges list, with the death penalty on the table, but it is what it is. He's facing life in prison, stripped of all rank and pay, with a dishonorable discharge if they ever let him out.

FORT MEADE, Maryland (Reuters) - Bradley Manning, the suspected source of the largest leak of classified U.S. documents in history, spent his 24th birthday in military court on Saturday listening to investigators detail how they pieced together the case against him.

As presented in this article, about all he has a defense is that he was in a difficult place, emotionally. Considering that he could have violated DADT at any time, and pranced off with an (easily upgraded later) general discharge, should this even be given a scond of consideration as a mitigating factor in his case?



I hope they Danny Deever him.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125