It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bradley Manning could face death: For what?

page: 1
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Bradley Manning could face death: For what?


www.salon.com

The U.S. Army yesterday announced that it has filed 22 additional charges against Bradley Manning, the Private accused of being the source for hundreds of thousands of documents (as well as this still-striking video) published over the last year by WikiLeaks. Most of the charges add little to the ones already filed, but the most serious new charge is for "aiding the enemy," a capital offense under Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Bradley Manning, Wikileak Cables




posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Mr. Manning is facing the death-penalty for "aiding the enemy". Instead of recognizing Mr Manning as an international hero, he is treated inhumanely and is facing life in prison or even the death penalty. Why? For bringing the truth out no matter how disgusting it is- truth that is being kept away from us, the people, by those in power so that they may stay in power for their own selfish motives. The same truth that if it gets enough public attention, may cause the prosecution of many up until now unrecognized criminals in the government and military.

He and Wikileaks are probably the main reasons for the Middle-East uprising and the subsequent revolutions that have lead and are leading to the overthrowing of corrupt and tyrannical governments- The same governments that were being kept in power by the USA to begin with.

Justice is not free and neither freedom. Either we demand to have justice or we shut up and let our freedoms be robbed from us one little bit at a time.

www.salon.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 3-3-2011 by edog11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
My question is why did he let himself get caught? I mean seriously, he is involved in information security he knows how not to get caught, why did he do it. That really pisses me off. He coulda got away scot free.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by edog11
 


Mr. Manning would already be dead if he pulled this stunt in any other country. What he did was illegal. You do something that is illegal, you pay the consequences. Doesn't matter if you agree with the politics behind it, legal is legal, and illegal is illegal.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by edog11
 


Im sure many will protest his death.They should at least take Julian Assange with him, I can't stand him.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
What he did could be classified as treasonous as well, death penalty is a little harsh but probably only because I disagree with it anyway, he committed a treasonous act against his country and broke the rules he swore to uphold when he joined the military. I feel no sorrow for him, he is getting what he deserves.

You cannot leak secret information from the military and expect no repercussions, what do you want? Should he receive a welcoming home party by the government with flowers and chocolates? His actions were not honorable and committed a high act of disobedience against the government of this country, none of which will or should be excused.

Sorry to bust up the party here but it is law and justice first, my opinions do not bend to rash on-the-spot emotion.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by edog11
 


I think what it boils down to is that the ole gubment's pissed and they're going to hit him as hard as they possibly can.

True, he did break the rules and broke the law, but death is really pushing it, big time.
edit on 3/3/2011 by gemineye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
We shouldn't even have a death penalty. Why do we give our government the right to kill people? It shouldn't be this way.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
For treason, although I read that it was unlikely that he would be executed and would probably do jail time. Too bad, Brad. You did it and now you pay while Assange gets to be the hero and enjoy the company of Swedish ladies....or maybe not.
For all we know Brad has caused deaths by his release of the information, the little twit.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Aiding the enemy, who is that, exactly?

You cannot wrap evil in a flag and claim innocence.

If the US government/millitary/legal system impose the death sentence on Manning, they will be judged by billions of impartial, non-national, average people from all around the world as being an evil stain on humanity.

Remember the lesson of the Nazis. We, the people of this planet, have the power. You could be the next opressors we wipe from your positions of privelege and comfort and damn for ever more!

The world has changed from what it was. This change is inevitable.

Shut down the net and we will resurrect it. Lie in the news and we will not believe you. Try and fight against ideas with tanks and you will run out of bullets and money.

We are a force that can totally overwhelm you in a war of attrition and we will not go quietly.

Threaten the brave and the heroes for humanity and we will obliterate you.

edit on 3/3/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Dunno on this, it's sticky
Some will say treason, but he may have been looking to defend from all enemies foreign and domestic.
He should have never opened his trap bout what he did, now he will probably have to just be a true hero and die for his country.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
To all who say he committed a treasonous act.
Tell me how shedding light to illegal activities committed by his own government is an act of treason. Doesn't the Oath of Allegiance state "to protect the USA from enemies foreign and domestic"?
link

He, together with Wikileaks are shedding light on corruption and the breaking of national and international law by many US representatives/officials and military personnel. Discouraging/preventing/punishing corruption and illegal conduct is supposed to be the US government's own job but since said government is too corrupt to perform this task, men like Manning are feeling obliged to take over the task and to try to make a difference by giving us the people the truth so that we can demand reforms.


IT--



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by RustyShakleford92
 


Do you live your life by the book sir!.

By law, "aiding the enemy " might be illegal, but what he did was "morally correct".
He pulled the curtain back on your oh so perfect military machine and showed you that law in the the US military means nothing.
He did us a favour.
The lesson learned is "dont's alaways believe what your told", especially by the government.

Now get your blinkers off and open your eyes.!



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by edog11
Doesn't the Oath of Allegiance state "to protect the USA from enemies foreign and domestic"?


Yes it does. Now are we supposed to enter a game where it is left up to individual interpretation to decide who is or is not a foreign or domestic enemy? Please inform me of what legal position you hold to make such a decision?



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by edog11
 


Every country in the entire world commits unethical acts. Do you know what happens to people who speak up against their government when they are in a compromising position to "tell" sensitive things? They die or disappear. And you know what, some things are best kept secret. The entire world cannot have the know about your countries strategies, observations, and plans. Should the whole world know absolutely everything about the USA, including it's informants, agents, locations, diplomatic policies, etc?



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock2009
 


Sherlock, let me admit to you that I sure as hell loved coc aine when I was younger. Ever since I found a great career, I would never think about touching the stuff because I don't want my life taken away because I am risking arrest every time I would be in use or possession of it. When it comes to serious offenses that could ruin my life, YES I do live it by the books.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir

Originally posted by edog11
Doesn't the Oath of Allegiance state "to protect the USA from enemies foreign and domestic"?


Yes it does. Now are we supposed to enter a game where it is left up to individual interpretation to decide who is or is not a foreign or domestic enemy? Please inform me of what legal position you hold to make such a decision?


I do not hold a "legal position" nor do I need one to have the capacity to know what is right and what is wrong in this case. A fine tuned sense of morality is more than enough to do so, just like the founding fathers of the USA knew.

Killing innocent civilians is wrong, no matter what the law says.
Killing innocent civilians who are injured while other civilians are trying to help them is wrong AND against the laws set by the Geneva convention. This (The Apache slaughter in Iraq) is just one example but a good one.

Mr. Manning shed light on this atrocity which was not investigated until after it got public attention and even after that, the people responsible were acquitted- even when they clearly shot and killed the journalist who was injured, the man who was helping him and his 2 children. We all saw it. That was the breaching of international law and nobody got punished.


IT--



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by RustyShakleford92
reply to post by edog11
 


Mr. Manning would already be dead if he pulled this stunt in any other country. What he did was illegal. You do something that is illegal, you pay the consequences. Doesn't matter if you agree with the politics behind it, legal is legal, and illegal is illegal.


This is exactly right, he did it. Assange and wikileaks, well that's a different issue. They did not steal the data they just published it big difference!. Manning was in a position of trust and breached that trust. He probably even took an oath or signed something to say he would not do it, but he did it anyway. Wikileaks did not agree or sign to anything, therefore they should not be touched over this.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
I think some people are missing the larger issue:

Some actually believe that simply because something is "legal" or illegal" that it should preclude the exposure of wrongdoings--and illegal actions, i might add--by the government simply because it's "law?" Just because something is "illegal" doesn't make that law right or just. Are some suggesting that it's worse to expose the wrongdoings (illegality) of government than it is for the government to commit said wrongdoings and illegal actions itself and hide it?

As if the government were somehow above or exempt from accountability than the average citizen?

Wow.

If one lets government do what it wants without question and with blind allegiance, one is no better than who he condemns and it quickly contributes to the nation's demise.

Even governments must be held accountable, especially when it acts in its citizens' names.


*shakes head*



new topics

top topics



 
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join