WikiLeaks suspect being moved out of Quantico

reply to post by CosmosKid


So if Germany had won WW2, the Holocaust would have been totally fine. Any crime is ok, so long as you win, right?

reply to post by neo96


How did we get on the topic of goods and services? I must have missed a post. Actually people getting together just might be able to change a policy. Will it happen on ATS? No, but we are not here to change anything, we are here to discuss.

reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross


war for oil that old tune brought up goods and services.

enough people meaning mob rule who do not understand the complexity of the entire world economies based on the consumption of oil and the consequences of the us withdrawing from the world.

that hows in a nutshell.

Originally posted by HomerinNC

Originally posted by Vanishr
The only 'political scandal' involved here is jailing a freedom of speech activist, who tried to warn people of the horrible truths of the government.

no its the jailing of a THIEF

Yes, a thief, very true...but a hero in my book..the government deserved that one

Having followed the case of this individual with some interest there are a few things that can be stated here. The private is accused of giving documents of a classified nature to the web site Wikileaks, while some of this is true, however, based off of the information that is given, and the evidence that has been reported on leads a question of doubt in the mind of the public. How is it that one person, who was under suspicion already able to get access to sensitive materials, in a controlled situation? The DOD regulations on the control of classified information is very clear cut, where it normally takes 2 people to gain access to such and then both have to sign in and sign out. While it can not be disputed that what he did was wrong, the question of guilt has yet to be determined in a Military court martial. The question of how much he did has yet to be ascertained, and in short, they are using him as a patsy for the ineptness of the military and the command which he served under. There is a fine line between punishment and retribution, and from all accounts, this is retribution, and used to serve as a symbol of not speaking and remaining silent. It can be argued that some of the actions taken against him, would be cruel, even for the military, thus it should draw the publics attention. Some would call him a traitor, however that charge is unfounded in the eyes of the law, as he did not pass this on to any known enemy of the United States of America, nor has there been proclaimed a gag order against the US Armed forces and the personnel that serve that organization. He did not give or sell state secrets, nor did he profit from the release of such. Based off of all information that is given, here are the facts that many would understand them to be:
The facts are the following:
The US is engaged in armed conflicts in 2 separate countries. Private manning had access to computers that held sensitive equipment, and reports. He took those reports and passed them on to Wikileaks. Wikileaks published and released them to the world, but that was only for the goings on in Iraq. No secrets, no orders, no military intelligence was released from him. His command became suspicious of his activities and did not remove him or bar him access. He was caught and shipped state side and has endured cruel punishments by the military, and is now being transferred to a federal/military prison out in Kansas.
Something does not seem correct in all of this, and there are too many questions that are arising. It has the appearance of an actual conspiracy to silence all those involved and cover up the truth of the matter, as well as, protect the command staff and those in charge of the military operations in Iraq and Afganistan from criminal prosecutions or removal from their postings.

So let's do a little fictive comparison here. Let's say person A goes to work for B, wheter a government, business or whatever. He signs off his rights to get to work with classified data. During work he discovers that B is knee deep in child molestation. Local government and police seem to be in on it too. What should he do then?
A) Do nothing.
B) Report the information to the very same people who are molesting children.
C) Leak the info to someone outside in the hopes of justice being served?

If this were the case noone would ever stand up against the guy calling him a scumbag or a thief for exposing these people.

reply to post by HomerinNC


He probly authorized himself. Thats what I'd have done. I authorize myself to do stuff all the time. Everyone has authority to do whatever we want, just some of us don't have the force to answer when our authority is challenged. No person or entity on earth is MORE sovereign than any other person.

One things for sure. If I was secretly taking advantage of millions of people and committing war crimes in the daylight 24/7, I sure hope there would be one brave person who had the guts to take those secrets from me. I sure hope that person wouldn't wait to be "authorized" to "release" my secret info and hold me accountable.

Am I right Folks?

reply to post by sdcigarpig


Thanks for that post. It reestablished my faith in this thread. It reminded me for a moment of a factual, non biased, analytical reporting style that died a sudden death not that long ago I believe Manning is a hero but sadly I also have to side with those who say he broke the law and I don't think Manning would argue that point. There are by my reconing a great deal of people here that feel something has to be done about the corruption within the ranks of the US Government, big business and government should not sleep together etc. Here's a man who took it upon himself to try and change the stage, ruffle some feathers and inform the people that their concept of "Government of the people, by the people, for the people " was nothing more than words...An illusion!


At least he got off his duff and did something about it. Right or wrong he acted with full knowledge of the possible consequences according to his beliefs. Compared to this man, I'm just a dork on the sidelines with a keyboard and an internet connection. Right or wrong, I think he deserves respect for his actions if for no other reason than he had the balls to take them!

Originally posted by HomerinNC


Well he is still a criminal NO MATTER what ANYONE says, he released classified material to unauthorized persons. A traitor and a scumbag in my book
One day, some of you will realize that, if you take something thats not yours to take, or not yours to release, you WILL be punished. Its not the fact of what the material was, it was the fact he wasnt AUTHORIZED to release it

www.latimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Are you kidding me with this? Please tell me this is satire. You don't care what the material is? I really hope you aren't serious.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Terrorist

 

someone else has some issues to work out too

manning broke the law which is ok
bush broke the law which is not ok.

I don't see how that's an issue to work out. Whether it's okay for someone to break a law depends on the circumstances. It's not inherently wrong to break a law.
For example, is it wrong for a slave to escape?

reply to post by CosmosKid


You're putting a lot of words in my mouth.

Originally posted by CosmosKid
reply to post by Terrorist

 

So,now I'm not only a drone, but a raping, murdering drone!.

I never said that, nor anything about that. I think you were reading one of my responses to neo96.

If your trying to convince me to say only US citizens in uniform are the ONLY criminals on this planet, You won't. If your trying to get me to tell you that rape and muder only get commited by US citizens in uniform, you won't. You don't like US citizens in uniform, sorry about that. Nobody else but US citizens in uniform ever commit crimes or rapes or murders.is what your saying.

I never asserted any of that.

I got it.

Obviously, you don't "got it." My point was entirely different than what you say it was.
I hate doing analogies, but if you'll let me, I feel I have to resort to that.
Consider if you saw a house on fire, and you had to break in to save someone's life, does it matter that you've broken in during the circumstances?
I'm not talking about legality, I'm talking about morality. Manning knew what he was doing was illegal, but it would be really hard to argue that it was immoral.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Blaine91555

can you supply any evidence that people have died because of this leak and people defend him because he done the correct thing in exposing war crimes. that in itself should not be a crime...

kx

Lets leave it at he is a criminal and you know as well as I do that Wikileaks leaked names of people who risked their lives and who may be at risk themselves. His own Mother thinks he is mentally disturbed. He did it for attention and I doubt he cared about anything.

My opinion is as valid as yours here. I'm not impressed by people who do wrong or support those who do wrong. This man was a volunteer, who had a cushy little job in a safe place and a mental disorder.

No doubt you understand that those names he leaked could have hurt innocent people and may have already done so. I don't buy the other argument.

I will defend Wikileaks original intent but not Assange the little attention whore. I won't defend a volunteer in the military who commits what is in fact Treason just because he feels picked on. I'm not a child or a child in an adult body.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
[...]you know as well as I do that Wikileaks leaked names of people who risked their lives and who may be at risk themselves.

That turned out not to be true..

I won't defend a volunteer in the military who commits what is in fact Treason just because he feels picked on.

I'm not a child or a child in an adult body.

How is reporting crimes your government committed treason? Neither you nor I know whether he did it because he "feels picked on." That's pure speculation. I've heard from various news articles he was just disillusioned (understandably) with the U.S. military at the time of the leak.

Everyone knows that there is two different punishment systems for Officers and for the Enlisted. It is very possible that is part of the why Oliver North only spent a few months in a minimum security prison. Mind you that Iran was our enemy at the time this was going on and they had taken US hostages just a few years earlier. The weapons were bought and paid for originally with taxpayer money. By selling them to Iran and using the money to fund the Contras in Nicaragua they were subverting the law. This was a breach of the Boland Amendment. That is why what Regan, Oliver North and Bush should have all served time. Sadly there are some people that really are above the law. I'm so tired of people picking their heroes just because of which political party they are in, there are just as many crooks on both sides of the political spectrum.

reply to post by Terrorist


no you can have it both ways the facts are manning broke the law

bush had congressional approval not only did he have that the un also approved it

illegal wars are a flat out lie with the addition all congress had to do was to defund military operations which they chose not to do.


these are the facts and no more hypotheticals are just straw man arguements.

what i proposed is exactly what manning did.


it is a serious issue because IT IS WRONG TO BREAK THE LAW especially in matters of high treason.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Terrorist

 

no you can have it both ways the facts are manning broke the law

bush had congressional approval not only did he have that the un also approved it

illegal wars are a flat out lie with the addition all congress had to do was to defund military operations which they chose not to do.


these are the facts and no more hypotheticals are just straw man arguements.

what i proposed is exactly what manning did.


it is a serious issue because IT IS WRONG TO BREAK THE LAW especially in matters of high treason.

The crimes comitted by the U.S. that I was referring to weren't the illegal wars, it was the countless revelations from the exposed materials. Murdering civilians, journalists, covering it up, etc.

You were the one that asked the first hypothetical question, not me. So humor me, please. Answer my question whether it is morally acceptable for a slave to escape despite it being presumably illegal? You must know illegal is not analogous with morally wrong.

reply to post by CCLLCCLL


what war crimes has the us commited?

War crimes are serious violations of the laws applicable in armed conflict (Also known as International humanitarian law) giving rise to individual criminal responsibility. Examples of such conduct includes "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of prisoners, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity".[1]

yea they did some things to some prisoners, but they didn't kill any, they didn't cut the heads off on reporters on live TV im talking about daniel pearl by the way, they didn't burn behead and hang contractors from a bridge? thsoe sound like war crimes to me what about you?

manning is being punished because he was given access to sercet, classified military files that he then leaked gave out whatever you want to call it to people who had no right or reason to see those files. in essance he stole those files and then gave them to people.

take insider trading for example. a person has access to material in the stock market, they know a high value stock is going to fail so they sell there stocks before the said stock goes down, they then gain a substancial sum of money.

has is been publically said that manning didn't accept money for the information he had? if he did accept money then it could be a lot worse for him

Originally posted by caf1550
[...] yea they did some things to some prisoners, but they didn't kill any [...]

Actually, they did. The CIA did an investigation into that, and even they admit it.

[...] has is been publically said that manning didn't accept money for the information he had? if he did accept money then it could be a lot worse for him [...]

Yes. It is Wikileaks' policy not to solicit information. They accept/reject information upon submission, and they do not actively pursue leaks.

reply to post by HomerinNC


You should leave the USA if you feel that greatly about someone that is trying to help his fellow people, by telling us what is really going on.