Protesters want WikiLeaks suspect released from Fort Leavenworth

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by tamusan
If that is how you interpret what I am saying, then yes, that is what I am saying. My life or the life of my friends could have been compromised because of his actions.

You life and the life of your friends can also be compromised by the actions of your government too, isnt that true? In fact, if you are military, and in the middle east right now, lets be perfectly clear who is compromising your life and that of your friends. Heres a hint. Its not Manning or Wikileaks. Its the people that sent you over there to fight and potentially die to make a bunch of people who dont care about you, think you are a bottom feeder, and would not hire you, a lot richer.

^^ Exactly so.

The real patriots are those who are speaking out about the vile corruption, and not those who blindly defend it, or threaten to shoot people for speaking out.

reply to post by mr-lizard

Shot? Why? Because he was braver than you, or simply because you disagree with what he did. May I ask YOU how you would deal with your Government (and corporations), how you could present to me a method of revealing corruption but without getting shot by people. Would you ring the police? Or would you shoot the corrupt people, or would you ignore it, or would you not care?

I answered why he should be shot in my last post. IF he is found guilty of treason. I have been in combat situations and have reported wrongdoers using the proper channels. There were investigations and people were punished when it was due.

You can't answer it, but you'd still like to see a man shot?

I said that I can't answer, because the answers could be sensitive information. If he is guilty of treason, as I said before, he should be shot.

I know this. So are you anti-war then? But why are you suggesting shooting people if you're anti-war? This doesn't make sense at all.

Did I claim to be anti-war? I have never made such a claim. I've served in the military long enough to get a retirement. I do not support the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent killing of Saddam Hussein. However, I think that Afghanistan did need a clean up.

And there are far more preaceful regimes in the world than the U.S govt, and there are better ones waiting to take power when it's gone.

All governments suck in their own way. It's the corporations and socialists who are ruining the U.S. government and other countries. My current wife is Japanese, and I have spent plenty of time living there. I used to think their government was awesome, but now I see they a crap as well. I have a child with a woman from the PRC, and have also spent time there. I think their government has some strong points, but it is also too oppressive. Who's government do you like? I like anarchy.

Maybe if we had less of the childish 'shoot everyone' attitude, we wouldn't need whistle blowers, but as long as they still remain, then don't be surprised when people speak out about your crimes and the crimes of your government.

It's more like if everyone who went into the military displayed more integrity there would be no need for whistle blowers. Yeah, there are plenty of people in the military who should be in Leavenworth with the whistleblower.

I dont know if this has been posted , but it's an interesting documentary on Bradley Manning, with interviews with many who knew him. Manning used to be a gay rights campaigner.

reply to post by tamusan


Shoot him ? I think not.

Consider the facts. Bradley Manning was unfit to be deployed to Iraq. He wet himself, shouted at his commanding officers, subject others to violent outbursts, threw objects like chairs around & was a trooper for whom regular psychiatric evaluation was the norm. He was described as being a "mess of a child" by an officer at the Fort Leonard Wood Missouri trainng facility & widely considered unfit for duty.

That's not my opinion. It's detailed in Manning's leaked military personnel report, the same report which details his profound "adjustment disorder".

Any reasonable person would question how such a guy could end up in the United States Armed Forces.

But that's where he ended up, in Iraq. Twice. And second time round the block he retained his security clearance and became an intell specialist. But his superiors were still so worried about him that they removed the bolt from his rifle because he was considered a risk to both himself and others. And have you ever seen pictures of him in combats ? He's just a kid. And he's looks like a kid, all of 5 foot nothing and built like someone who's never seen a parade ground in his life, immature and with a whole lot of growing up to do.

So that's Bradley Manning, the man you'd have shot.

Now, i might have left the British Armed Forces over two decades ago now. I might be past my best when it comes to all things of a military persuasion.

But I just don't consider it right that such a man could be given unfettered access to hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents. I don't actually understand why a trooper in Iraq needs to be able to access diplomatic tittle tattle from the US Embassy in Tokyo. Nor do I understand why no checks were made on those files he viewed. It's also beyond me why log in details & passwords, enabling access to all these sensitive files, were stuck on post it notes on his VDU screen & keyboard. Perhaps someone can explain why the intell officers were allowed to bring blank media into this operational area & why no checks were made on the media they were taking away. Or why a culture was allowed to develop amongst his unit that watching videos of people being killed in military operations became a source of amusement ... well, that and bullying the soldier in question.

Not that he was a poor innocent little soul, Mr. Manning, he once belted his female CO in the face and got demoted. Did they take away his security clearance at that point ? Send him home perhaps ? Maybe think that he wasn't quite right ? Nope, not at all. They return him to duty.

You'd have them kill Bradley Manning when it's abundantly clear he should never have been in the armed forces in any capacity whatever. The responsibility for what he did can be shared quite evenly by the United States Armed Forces too, can it not ? And if that's the case, perhaps he shouldn't be on trial at all ?

But you'd have him killed.

Shame on you. I thought better of ATS members.

reply to post by Niall197


In light of the information you have given, it is unlikely that he will be found guilty of treason, and as a result will not be shot. I know many people who were in the military and should not have been. So, it seems to me that there are others who should be investigated and dragged into Leavenworth. Starting with whoever found him fit for duty.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Very well said IAG,Its not the Bradley Manning's of this world we should be worrying about,we have a crop of blood loving globalist war beasts at the helm of the "free" world at the moment-It is they people should worry about IMO.

I actually feel sorry for naive mr manning-he was allegedly sweet talked by WL into handing over info which has made him a traitor to his gang,the USmilitary.

Maybe he thought he was doing the right thing..now he gets the treatment in solitary for his ill thought out deeds.
The guy should have held onto the info until he was discharged,and left the the US.Then he could release it with a degree of anonymity at least.

No chance of that now...

reply to post by Silcone Synapse


Actually, Wikileaks isnt the reason Manning is in trouble. Manning is the reason Manning is in trouble.

Wikileaks didnt give him up, nor was he traced through their system. Manning told a rat on the internet what he did, and that person turned him in, and doing it on the internet left total documentation of it.

Manning got stupid. You know how two people can keep a secret? If one of them are dead. If you are going to do something you shouldnt, dont tell anyone. ANY one. Wikileaks doesnt know who gives them information, by design. Its anonymous.

reply to post by Silcone Synapse


I gave you a star just because I like the axolotl in your picture.

At the end of the day, I don't believe there will ever be a system good enough for everyone. As long as there is a chance to have more than the next guy, corruption and greed will remain rampant.

Maybe Mr. Manning believed that he was doing the right thing, but he was bound by the terms of his enlistment.

Originally posted by TheComte
I question just how sensitive the information was that he leaked, considering that nothing happened because of it.

Much ado about nothing, I think.

Nothing happened because of it? You must be joking! The entire Middle East went up in flames, starting with Tunisia. It was the frank nature of the cables that called those dirt bag dictators what they were that started the whole thing. Our diplomats know who the sleaze balls are and talked about some of the asinine things they were doing in the cables. You can say that's a good thing or a bad thing--doesn't matter to me, but to say his leaks did nothing is absolutely bull. They had a profound effect on world politics.

Originally posted by tamusan
If that is how you interpret what I am saying, then yes, that is what I am saying. My life or the life of my friends could have been compromised because of his actions.

Illegal war and occupation compromises the life of you and your friends. Speaking the truth does not....

reply to post by tamusan

I have been in combat situations and have reported wrongdoers using the proper channels. There were investigations and people were punished when it was due.

He tried using the correct channels and was told to shut up. What would you do then...?

reply to post by purplemer


If I had committed a crime, while doing what I thought was the right thing, then I would be prepared to take the consequences.

reply to post by purplemer


Illegal war and occupation is all a matter of opinion. I don't see any countries trying to get the United States and cohorts to trial in a world court over illegal war and occupation.

Originally posted by tamusan
reply to post by purplemer

 

Illegal war and occupation is all a matter of opinion. I don't see any countries trying to get the United States and cohorts to trial in a world court over illegal war and occupation.

You are incorrect. Illegal war is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. The law is the law and we live in bad times when people and countries think they are above the law.

week, he dedicated his entire annual address to the UN General Assembly to the subject of international law, saying, "We must start from the principle that no one is above the law and no one should be denied its protection." So how was the invasion of Iraq illegal? How does that affect the situation there today? And what are the practical implications of this for U.S. policy going forward, in Iraq and elsewhere? The Secretary General presumed what the world generally accepts-that international law is legally binding on all countries. In the United States, however, international law is spoken of as a tool that our government can use selectively to enforce its will on other nations or else circumvent when it conflicts with sufficiently important U.S. interests.

www.thirdworldtraveler.com...

The former UN chief weapons inspector has told the UK inquiry into the Iraq war the invasion was “illegal”. Hans Blix is among a group of senior military and political officials to testify before the panel.

rt.com...

Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes? A Nuremberg chief prosecutor says there is a case for trying Bush for the 'supreme crime against humanity, an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation.' The extent to which American exceptionalism is embedded in the national psyche is awesome to behold. While the United States is a country like any other, its citizens no more special than any others on the planet, Americans still react with surprise at the suggestion that their country could be held responsible for something as heinous as a war crime.

www.alternet.org...

Yes America could be tried for war crimes, but not in the present geopolitical climate. The reason being that atm America has the biggest stick. In future times however I am sure that certain individuals will be hunted down just like the nazi war criminals were and with an estimated 12 million dead including non combatives. Let justice prevail...
Bradley Mannings did the right thing. The man is a hero

Interesting thoughts, I've enjoyed reading through them. My take on the whole mess is that corruption is rampant in the world at this time, and it is to be expected that people will "tell on" the corrupt when their (the people's) discomfort with it becomes unbearable. This is an individual, subjective thing.

Manning had reached his breaking point, and his track record certainly indicates poor self-control and "unfitness" for the duties required of him. Whoever decided to place him as an intell specialist may, or may not, have known what information he was privy to, but they undoubtedly had enough background and history of his behavior to make an educated judgment as to where his strengths would be best put to use, and what his weaknesses precluded him being given responsibility for.

If there were nothing to hide, no top-secret cables or hidden agendae or underhanded connivance or hypocrisy to be found, it would not have mattered WHAT Manning -- or anyone else -- read or overheard or looked at.

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr. said that, for accurate attribution, but who said it is not the point. It was a profound way of stating the premise that justifies whistle-blowing. Those who expose corruption should be treated with dignity and not strung up by their heels or "shot."

I believe the underlying problems and behaviors that Manning exposed needed to be exposed. And I also believe he was unfit and that should have been recognized. Breaking a "law", which is a construct of human beings, a forbidden thing, should not be thought of as the bottom line here. The world is errupting in flames of hatred, frustration, distrust, suffering, and all those most unpleasant things that humans have endured age after age at one another's hands. Laws are made because people don't necessarily behave nicely. Personally, I think "rules of engagement" are preposterous and outrageous constructs. People should not be oppressing, killing, shooting at, starving, enslaving, deceiving, slandering, manipulating others. Period. No one, nowhere, should be excused. No special "rules" for warfare. Just NO WARFARE.

There is no one person who can be blamed, found as "guilty", and then punished for this mess. If he is to be tried for treason, so should be the entire global warmongering web of deceit that was his environment. Killing one more young person is not going to solve ANYTHING!!

reply to post by purplemer


You must have missed the part where I siad I do not agree with the Iraq war and subsequent killing of Saddam Hussein, but that is irrelevant.

You've still shown no proof that any war is illegal, other than the opinion of some almost important people. Let's see some actual laws.

Originally posted by tamusan
reply to post by Silcone Synapse

 

I gave you a star just because I like the axolotl in your picture.

At the end of the day, I don't believe there will ever be a system good enough for everyone. As long as there is a chance to have more than the next guy, corruption and greed will remain rampant.

Maybe Mr. Manning believed that he was doing the right thing, but he was bound by the terms of his enlistment.

edit on 5-6-2011 by tamusan because: (no reason given)

Well thank you Sir/Madam for recognizing my Axolotl.
His name is Teal'c and he lives with another Axo called Dr. Jackson.
Still going strong after 4 years of living at my house.
They actually have proper character traits and each are different.

Anyhow,sorry for off topics..
I agree with your points on the system though,We will never work it out it seems.

Well innocent until proven guilty, least we not forget that Bradley hasn't had a fair trial yet.

Heres some of the story I've heard so far (pinch of salt)....

Apparently Adrian Lamo reported Bradley Manning to the authorities (Lamo is another hacker) saying it was Bradley who sent Wikileaks the cables, there is a chatroom log documenting this, is this enough evidence to convict someone?.

Bradley Manning went to his superiors several times to report various issues ... but what issues, is still unclear, from inhumane treatment of prisoners, inhumane acts of war and also I have read he witnessed people being tortured with electric drills.

Given the amount of awful torture we have seen from the US Military during this war, I find it inexplicably shocking to lock up a very young man like this, without investigating what upset him so much that he would turn against the military.

But oh no, they just locked him up 23hours a day took away all his privileges, including his clothes, denying even human rights organisations access to visit him.

Looks like he might be the only one to live up to the US Military slogan 'be all that you can be', at least he had the intelligence not to loose his morality in a war zone.

Check out the support network, leave a message or some cash, show your support: Bradley Manning Support Network

Free Bradley!

I think it's more treasonous for our government to withhold information from the citizens of this country.

Free Manning!

reply to post by BiGGz


Yeah, there is definitely something foul in the air.



Releasing information that could potentially cause harm to Americans is treasonous by any governments standards.