Bradley Manning formally charged with 'aiding the enemy' by giving files to WikiLeaks

reply to post by Xcathdra


Still no proof to the harm to soldiers - just posting of ideals and suggestions! Please Name Rank Serial Number (oh yeah they changed that to SSAN no) and Circumstances of Death that shows Bradley was responsible for that soldiers death by Bradley's leaked information.

Do you understand there is a duty and care the US government has towards its citizens and military? So which contract is more important? Bradley's or US Government. In my case the government broke their contract with me over changing the GI Bill after I earned them....

Both large businesses and government have setup these dictators which our young had to die so that they can be removed from power whilst the corporation profited both ways 1) setting these dictators up 2) mopping up the damages caused by removing them. The arguments for these illegal wars date back for a few generations that the US leaders we put into power* have set up and supported these dictator who committed crimes against humanities. The reason our government put these dictators into power was that they controlled their people usually by force and cruel means so that our governments and corporations can benefit. If this was a legal case in court the arguments or the justification for conflict would have been waved as the government did nothing but support them for so many years and turned a blind eye to these atrocities! In effect these actions were aiding the enemy by providing those dictators with the weapons, cash and technology - with the expressed knowledge what these dictators would do with those resources so that the US desired puppet er leader would do what the US government wanted. Before Bradley was born our government aided these enemies with the knowledge of what these so called leaders were doing to their people..... So who is really guilty of aiding?

Seriously do you not hold the US government responsible for setting this ugly stage for these conflicts that cost so many American and other countries soldiers?

Let’s put it another way if I gave you a gun - you killed someone - am I not responsible for arming you?
IMHO there is a place for whistle blowers in this world! Without them our world would be in a worse place than it is now. An important whistle blowers is Mark Felt, also known as “Deep Throat.” He discovered President Nixon’s involvement in the illegal dealings at the Watergate Hotel at 1972. Then you have Sherron Watkins, the former vice president of Enron, became a whistle blower when she exposed the irregular accounting activities of that company! Who at my age cannot forget Jeffrey Wiggand who exposed the wrong doings of the cigarette industry when he revealed that cigarette manufacturers knew that nicotine was addictive and that cigarettes were carcinogenic. We would not have our smokeless areas without him! Many of these brave whistle blowers did signed so called agreements or contracts as you are holding on to that is so important to you. There are many points that make a contract and many reasons for those contracts to become null and void. So many so that the courts are filled with cases arguing over contractual law. How is this any different? Whistle blowing is not something that someone does planned or goes into a job knowing they are about to ruin their and their loved ones lives by this action. It’s a moral thing! Usually this happens when the said blower cannot take the pressure of looking the other way any longer.

So what came first the chicken or the egg?

*I don’t believe that the US elections have elected any one rather TPTB rig it so that their puppet er ah leader would be in power. I was very upset when I found my absentee ballot would not be counted when the Florida fiasco occurred between Al Gore and GW Bush. There has been a few threads here on ATS lately regarding the current Republican Primary and it is understood and accepted that there were missing votes…..

reply to post by IceHappy


They are not seeking the death penalty. If Manning actions directly caused soldiers to die they might have. There are other avenues a person can take to expose war crimes, what he did more than foolish.

My guess is they will lock him up long enough for everyone to forget about him, 20 years at Fort Leavenworth.

reply to post by jrod


Still no answers to my question! My issue is not over the possible penalties - why try Bradley in court of law hes guilty you guys have made up your minds... You have made that post already what was the purpose of double postings.... How about naming a harmed soldier or answer one of the questions I have outlined? For example how do you feel that we are doing the same as thing as our excuse to go to war! Killing innocent victims! So lets deny ignorance, where is the facts to the harm... Oh in this case it does not matter.... To the Reuters crew that was shot down by that gun ship family this man is a hero..... BTW the gun the gunship report was a camera which was clear in the video. The children in the van that was repeated shot and killed the father it makes a difference this information!

I thought this site was looking for truths.... Seems as if everyone loves what the government has done in your name. I left my country because I did not agree. Guess everyone has too much invested in their lives jobs etc to question the morals of the subject.

I quit this thread as it seems everyone posting has decided his guilt and want Bradley's skin either in a noose or behind bars but you guys are unwilling to demonstrate the real lost of his releases of information or to answer any questions I pose. I do not write well as I am in chronic pain due to my service connected disabilities and take pretty heavy medication! I have invested a ton of time in the little words I have posted. I was looking for a debate! How sad that for my investment I only received repeated postings.... and no answers to my questions how disappointing.

Nothing to see here go back to sleep America, Bill Hicks was right!

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

So because you are completely clueless and ignorant of US law, UCMJ and treaties, that somehow makes you an expert to continually attack me?

Aside from having an issue with me, do you have any opinion on the op? Or when you complained about the thread being derailed by people, you meant everyone but you? All I see from you is jealousy and nothing more.

You're in my thread, so who is attacking who?

Most of my posts to you are usually in response to something that you direct at me. Otherwise I try to avoid replying to your posts (with a few exceptions to exceptional things that you happen to claim).

My issue with you is that you are a complete square with little sense for critical or imaginative thinking. All you do is agree with everything under the establishment's view and push the establishment's view on other posters. Personally, that is fine with me, because this place would get boring if everyone was on the same page. However, that doesn't change the fact that you attack me for not lowering myself to regurgitating textbook information. I don't do it because I'm not some mouthpiece for the state.

The fact that I don't sit around ATS all day posting links to this textbook fact or that government report is not due to an inability on my part to do so. It is because I don't get my facts from the same lazy and convenient sources that you do, and there really isn't much in my hands to supply to back up my claims. And why do I make such a concession? Because I'm on here to post my opinion, not to post facts like a bloody robot. Facts mean nothing without some kind of critical thinking skills to understand what they mean.

Please explain why you think Manning was right or wrong and what charges / penalty he should face and why?

Jesus H. Jumping Jehosivat Christ Almighty, I thought I posted many times already, especially in my very opening post in this thread, that I do not care about Manning- I only care about what the US government thinks. It doesn't matter what I think Manning should be charged with (not like I have an opinion on that anyways), because he has already been charged by what the establishment views is just.

The establishment has just established that providing real documents to the public is "aiding the enemy". And what were these documents? Not technical blueprints, not strategic maps, not identifying key commanders- they were documents pertaining to American war crimes. So how would exposing this information put US troops at risk? Because it would be used as evidence that the US is guilty of war crimes.

What is your major malfunction in understanding this concept?

Telling the truth is informing the enemy.

That's what they want you to believe. The truth is, we are the enemy. That's why Bradley Manning must be punished. Bradley Manning didn't inform the 'enemy', he informed us.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


I felt the need to post this, not so much for the sake of Bradley Manning, but rather for the sake of the nature of these charges.

He was charged with "aiding the enemy". What this means is that the US government has an identified enemy that Manning aided. Who is this enemy of the USA?

These documents were provided to wikileaks, which is an organization that releases secret documents to the public.

Is it just me, or did the US government just formally acknowledge that the public is their enemy? That we, the citizens of the world, are the enemy of the USA state?

I thought America was at war with terrorists and drug dealers, hense the "War on Terror" and "War on Drugs". But apparently, they just confirmed that they are at war against humanity.

news.nationalpost.co m
(visit the link for the full news article)

It would be just you. He released classfied material which aids the enemy, simple as that.

So if I was a worker at Los Alamos and released papers on the process of manufactuing the B-2 stealth coatings to wikileaks, is he aiding the enemy?

Originally posted by Laxpla
So if I was a worker at Los Alamos and released papers on the process of manufactuing the B-2 stealth coatings to wikileaks, is he aiding the enemy?

edit on 25-2-2012 by Laxpla because: (no reason given)

Not unless wikileaks was officially declared an enemy of the US government.

I'll say it again: Manning didn't give the documents to the "terrorists" that the US is at war with, unless the US has suddenly broadened the definition of terrorists to include Wikileaks.

Understand the area for concern?

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Yeah.. I dont really care what your problem is or what you think of me. When you decide to actually get around to answering the questions people ask, instead of obfuscating, let us know.

Did you ever resolve your issue with not understanding the charge of aiding the enemy? I posted the article for you to help you correct your incorrect claim its geared towards the people (citizens). There is a reason we use laws in this country and there is a reason I post those laws. Its so you and others can engage in the conversation in an informed manner, instead of just making stuff up or twisting what others say to support your incorrect conclusion.

On the off chance you skipped over it -

UCMJ - Article 104 - Aiding the enemy

Any person who–


(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or [protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;

shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.

No where in this article does it support your false claim that its geared towards the citizens of the US. The UCMJ does not apply to civilians, just the military.

What other false claim can I correct of yours?

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by Laxpla
So if I was a worker at Los Alamos and released papers on the process of manufactuing the B-2 stealth coatings to wikileaks, is he aiding the enemy?

edit on 25-2-2012 by Laxpla because: (no reason given)

Not unless wikileaks was officially declared an enemy of the US government.

I'll say it again: Manning didn't give the documents to the "terrorists" that the US is at war with, unless the US has suddenly broadened the definition of terrorists to include Wikileaks.

Understand the area for concern?

You really need to understand what you are talking about before making false claims.

Any person who–


(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or [protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;

shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.

A group does NOT have to be declared an enemy of the US government. This is why I post the laws.. Its done because you have no interest in the truth, only in attacking the US government and its actions.

If a person working at Los Alamos releases blueprints of the B2, they would not be charged with aiding the enemy since civilians are not subject to the UCMJ. The equivalent charge would be espionage or accessing and disseminating classified material.

reply to post by Xcathdra




I have been reading through the topic and again and again i see you making the statement that it would have been fine if manning has just released the cables that showed crimes but that it is the fact that he released all these files that show no evidence of crimes that is a serious issue.

'Again, had manning stuck to the criminal aspect he would have been fine. The argument people are trying to make in that regard, exposing criminal actions, was driven off the bridge when he released classified info that show no criminal activity what so ever. That demonstrated an action beyond whistle blowing. He essentially covered up potential crimes by burying those legitimate incidents that should be investigated needles under 10 tons of hay at 2am outside during a no moon period with no electricity with blindfolds.'

Sorry, but because you say it was driven off a bridge does not mean it was driven off a bridge. It becomes even less convincing when you try to suggest that by releasing the information he was covering it up. It is the definition of orwellian doublespeak to even suggest it. Tell me, how is releasing the cables burying these valid incidents, when the valid incidents remained unreported for years on a network 500,000 people had access to. Since we can assume the vast majority of the people accessing that network were moral people who would report the incidents, why didn't they? I guess on SIPRNet the incident cables were needles under 10 tons of hay at 2 am outside during a no moon period with no electricity with blindfolds. Seems the evidence suggests the cable release shone light on these incidents which were otherwise buried.


To overcome your demand that he release cables that only showed crimes to wikileaks, manning would have been required to read all 250000 cables and 400000 war logs documents before passing them on to wikileaks. Lets say he managed to in his free unsupervised time get through 10 cables a day. It would take him just shy of 200 years before he could release the resulting cables which showed criminal action. That would be ridiculous if it was 20 years or even 2 years, let alone 200.

From the cables manning looked at he found evidence of wrong doing like the collateral murder video. With no reasonable way to single handedly go through the information he released it to wikileaks, who uncovered a great deal more wrong doing. In his situation, Manning did the only practical thing which would allow a volume of information that size to be analysed, and worth analysing because of what he had found in his own reading of a tiny tiny portion of it. If he had taken the few stories he had uncovered to the press he would have gotten a headline and been charged with the exact same crimes he is being charged with now, and we would not know about 99 percent of the incidents which the warlogs and cables have brought up.

What the cables have given the world is an extraordinarily vivid glimpse into the way the US operates in private. What it has revealed is that much like the production of sausages, the operation of the US is something best
not looked into if you still want to like it afterwards. And I don't just mean wars. Spying on the UN, bullying nations and threatening them with sanctions if they do not adopt certain copyright laws etc etc.



As for manning in terms of a crime committed. In releasing the cables did he break the laws under which he was bound. Yes he did or at least the prosecution certainly have a pretty tight case for it. Do I feel he was right to break the oath he took. Yes I do, because i like he feel it would have been a larger crime to maintain that oath for the sole purpose of hiding the disgraceful actions of those beside me.

Is disgraceful too harsh a word. I think not. The cables established that there was a formal policy of ignoring Iraqi on Iraqi torture, and many instances where us troops handed people over to the iraqi forces knowing they would be tortured.

To quote the UN chief investigator on torture "if the files released through WikiLeaks pointed to clear violations of the United Nations Convention Against Torture the Obama administration had an obligation to investigate them." The Convention, according to Nowak, forbids the US from turning over detainees to the Iraqi government, if doing so meant they might be subjected to torture. - en.wikipedia.org...

Clearly Manning is a human rights hero for revealing this.

I say this because the things these cables revealed to the world would be western headline news every day for a decade had manning been a private in the Chinese or russian army. If he had been private Zhou, and the cables and warlogs had been about china then America would have declared him a hero for revealing the truth.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
A group does NOT have to be declared an enemy of the US government. This is why I post the laws.. Its done because you have no interest in the truth, only in attacking the US government and its actions.

If lives end up being at stake as a result, I think the government should have to explicitly define who the enemy is, Xcathdra.

I've said before that I have noticed a disturbing trend here, of an insistence within the contemporary American government, to have everything entirely its' own way.

I'm aware that it is possible that you are genuinely Lawful Neutral, in the sense that your only interest in seeing the crucifixion of Manning, is simply because he broke the law. I do, however, consider it vitally important to consider that while Manning broke the law, he did so as a result of, and in the process of, doing something which I at least consider right, and very much necessary.

In my own opinion, the Global War on Terror is a conflict with an entirely illegitimate basis. It is a justification for continued neocolonialism in the name of corporate profit, and was started on the basis of what many of us consider to be an entirely false and deceptive pretext; 9/11. If Manning's actions have served to increase public exposure of the GWOT's illegitimacy, and also as has been claimed, have done so in a manner which has not endangered American lives, then I think he should be applauded, not condemned. I am inclined, as I have already written, to strongly view Manning as an individual who may have violated, in the current scenario, the USMJ, but actually did so in order to act consistently with his oath of enlistment.

Ending America's engagement of the GWOT, is likely to have direct and positive implications for the survival of the American Constitution. Continuing said war, could very well end both politically and economically, with the destruction of your country. The genuine enemy is not foreign; it is domestic. Can you not see this?

You may not agree, but in my own mind a very strong case exists that America now has a government which has no interest in adhering to the constraints of the Constitution, and in fact is dedicated to finding whatever ways of working around them that it can. That said constraints may be adhered to in technical practice, is not in itself the point; Barrack Obama has expressed that he does not consider the Constitutional model to have contemporary relevance. Do you see no conflict between such an opinion, and his oath of office?

reply to post by petrus4


reply to post by spocksleftear


You missed my point so let me try again. Also, I am not Lawful Neutral. People tend to take my arguments and posting of law to be an absolute proponent of this or that. I post the info because I see people post who do not know what they are talking about, or they took something from the law that is incorrect. The info is to help people understand how something went from point A to point Z. I do have my personal opinions, and I voice that, however I have stated many times now that we do not determine guilt or innocence, the court does.

First - I respect your opinion and the position you are taking. The thing to remember though is the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was authorized by Congress at the request of the President. The argument on the legality of the war is not for Manning to make, and in the legal realm manning is in its irrelevant.

When this whole mess popped in the news, the argument at the time, and actually up to this point by some, was Manning was / is a whistle blower exposing criminal actions by the US Government. The intent is to expose the criminal behavior to a source who is capable of doing something to correct / investigate the crime - Congress / Media Outlet / etc.

Thats what a Whistle blower is.

When he released information beyond criminal activity, like the diplomatic cables, information from our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc, he moved from being a whistle blower into the realm of criminal activity. It was compounded by the fact the information he released was classified, and came from more than just the US Military, which means he accessed files / information that were beyond his job duty / requirements needed to access the classified info.

The information he retrieved was then encrypted in a manner that bypassed the security filters on military computers and sent to wikileaks, who then released it for anyone to view. My argument about the information being buried was not to suggest manning buried wrong doing. It goes back to the argument people made that Manning released the info to hold the US Government accountable for crimes. How do you hold a government accountable for crimes, when you take those incidents and release them with hundreds of thousands of other documents that show no criminal activity. My point was to show that again, Manning's actions were not to expose crimes, but to get even with the government (and he has serious issues with the Army / Government based on personal issues that pertained only to him).

As far as endangering the lives of people - the information released did in fact do that. It allowed governments who are not friendly to the US, in addition to insurgents in Iraq as well as the Taliban and Al Queida, to see how our operations worked, both in the military realm as well as the Diplomatic as well as Domestic home front realm.The charge of aiding the enemy clearly supports the position I was describing, which was intent.

One of the main goals in a war is to deny information to the other side. The side with the better intelligence / information generally will be successful.

As I stated, had Manning stuck to exposing criminal actions, I would be supporting him. I believe its every citizens job to question as well as hold our government / elected officials accountable at all levels in government. The problem I have was all of the other information that went along with it. To me, his actions were selfish at that point, appearing to only care about who he could screw over because he was not happy in the Army.

As far as the view on our Administration and the Constitution I have a question. What particular incident / action do you see that violated the Constitution. I'm not trying to be a smart ass or anything, I am just curious.

reply to post by petrus4


If the United Nations, the World Court or even the International Criminal Court was so concerned about torture and death, then maybe they should not have ignored it for as long as they have, and still do, in countries like Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, North Korea, Sudan, Syria etc etc.

The UN wants it the easy way, which is to say they have no will power to confront countries whose rule of law is different than those of the West. The UN, and some posters on this site, find it easier to constantly target US actions, only because they can get away with it with no action taken against them.

Try that in any one of the countries listed above and it becomes problematic. Hell Iran has threatened the UN / IAEA because they issued a report the Iranians didn't like, and in response gave into Iranian demands.

.When the United Nations decides to protect people from being slaughtered by their own government and does whats hard, then they can lecture the US on torture and our actions. To come in as a Monday morning quarterback is just cowardly.

reply to post by Xcathdra


And what you fail to understand is that it would be impossible for manning to sort through all that data himself. How do you suggest he could possibly have dealt with that much information himself. Seriously.

Also, the ease with which you paint manning is pretty disgusting. I mean have you even read the chat logs?

en.wikipedia.org...

He said he hoped the material would lead to "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms," and if not we're "doomed as a species...". He said the reaction to the Baghdad airstrike video had given him hope: "CNN’s iReport was overwhelmed ... Twitter exploded ..." He continued: "i want people to see the truth... regardless of who they are ... because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.[29]

Later that day he said the incident that "got [him] the most" was when 15 detainees were arrested by the Iraqi Federal Police for printing anti-Iraqi literature. He was asked by the army to investigate who the "bad guys" were, he said. He told Lamo he discovered the detainees had printed what he called a scholarly critique of the Iraqi prime minister, one called "Where did the money go?" that followed what Manning said was a corruption trail within the Iraqi cabinet. He reported this to his commanding officer, but said "he didn't want to hear any of it"; he said the officer told him to help the Iraqi police find more detainees. Manning said he realized, "i was actively involved in something that i was completely against ..." [29]

These are the statements of someone driven by their morality, not by someone trying to get even, or being selfish. You terribly cheapen his actions by painting him in such a light, actions which he himself declared would likely land him in prison for the rest of his life.

Shame on you.

Just aiding the enemy?

Oh well... He'll never see the light of day again... That's a nice victory!

Originally posted by spocksleftear
And what you fail to understand is that it would be impossible for manning to sort through all that data himself. How do you suggest he could possibly have dealt with that much information himself. Seriously.

Your missing the point. Manning's job was not to sift through hundreds of thousands of documents to find criminal wrong doing. His job was to be an intelligence analyst, with his job focuses being the theater he was assigned to.

He knew about the Helicopter incident and turned it over. Good on him.

Originally posted by spocksleftear
Also, the ease with which you paint manning is pretty disgusting. I mean have you even read the chat logs?

en.wikipedia.org...

He said he hoped the material would lead to "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms," and if not we're "doomed as a species...". He .........snipped for room...

Im sorry if you find breaking the law, breaking his oath and placing people in danger acceptable.. I do not.
His job was not to sift through classified information that had nothing to do with his job. Im not sure how you think it was his job, and im confused as to your argument about how long it would take him.

Again, Manning's job was intelligence analyst to support our operations in Iraq... His job was NOT to access classified information, steal that information, and then send it out. You pointed out the chat logs, which is interesting because based on your previous comment, he couldn't sift through all the files.

If he couldn't go through all the files, then how does he know if any criminal wrong doing took place? A whistle blower does not put together charges, nor does he submit them to the PA, nor does he decide if the charges will go forward or if the PA declines to prosecute. He doesn't determine guilt or innocence either. He reports the info and goes from there.

The United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court, so what exactly is the purpose of releasing all the info? No charges can be brought against our military or government officials from foreign bodies so I ask you - whats the purpose of his action? By releasing it to wikileaks he had no intent to expose wrong doing, but to screw over the US government.

Originally posted by spocksleftear
Shame on you.

Yes yes, shame on me for supporting our judicial system instead of a pissed off intelligence analyst whose actions were based on revenge and not the moral high ground you are trying to portray it. Exactly how does the criminal actions of the US government and the criminal actions of Manning deserve a hypocritical view?

Contrary to popular belief we still are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. To argue that the US ignores the law and that action is just evil while at the same time approving of violating the law simply because you have an issue with the US government doesn't bode well for your argument.

2 wrongs make a right?

I wish you people would have this much drive and ambition towards illegal actions by governments in Iran, Iraq, Syria, N. Korea etc etc etc.

Shame on you for supporting the criminals in the governments of those countries listed through your silence.

Originally posted by DrNotforhire
Just aiding the enemy?

Oh well... He'll never see the light of day again... That's a nice victory!

Its more than that..

The Aiding the enemy charge seemed to confuse some people, who assumed it was a military law that targeted US citizens...

reply to post by Xcathdra


Oh you are correct in this!

I'm just glad he's being dealt with accordingly

reply to post by Xcathdra


Back it up, 5 minutes ago you seemed to think what manning did was fine if all he released was information related to crimes. Now suddenly it was not his job to do look through the documents for criminal wrong doing? If he was just doing his job none of this would have ever come to light. When did i ever imply what he was doing was part of his job? And how can you be confused about my point on how long it would take him to sort through the files. One of the main thrusts of your argument was he should not have released files that did not contain crimes to wikileaks. How could he possibly know if a file contained crimes or not without going through all the data he stole himself. To do that would have been impossible. Hell it was even impossible for wikileaks, they had to crowd source it out to journalists and then the public. So your expectation on manning to release only cables with crimes in them is unrealistic. It is like saying he should have sorted through all 10 tons of your mythical hay to find the needles within rather than handing it over to 200 people to divide up and search for more needles like the ones he found.



Im sorry if you find breaking the law, breaking his oath and placing people in danger acceptable.. I do not.

This i find particularly funny. Breaking the law? Breaking an oath? I would do these things in a second, because i am not a robot. Just because a law exists does not make it a just law. Would you be standing in line to bash in some womans head in a middle eastern country because she committed adultery? She broke the law right? Do you approve of the extradition using an interpol red notice of someone who spoke ill of 'the prophet' so he can be sent home to be beheaded. You must, because he broke the law. I say screw those laws. And i say screw any law that makes revealing a crime into a crime.

He broke an oath? Congrats, so does the guy who squeals on the mafia. US soldiers handed people into be tortured and not one of them, not one of them disobeyed their orders even though they were in direct violation of international laws. All for their precious oath. Screw their oath if it means they have to be monsters to keep it, and screw them if they are willing to become monsters to keep it.

As for placing people in danger, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You will happily write off the murder of civilians with a story about how war is hell and situations can go bad in a heartbeat etc etc etc etc, but the mere thought of someone being hurt as a result of the cable release has you recoiling in horror. Seriously?


The United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court, so what exactly is the purpose of releasing all the info? No charges can be brought against our military or government officials from foreign bodies so I ask you - whats the purpose of his action? By releasing it to wikileaks he had no intent to expose wrong doing, but to screw over the US government.

So, just to clarify. Because the US could not be punished for any crimes by the ICC, the revelation of those crimes cannot be considered to be worth doing on its own merit. Please tell me you are kidding. So if someone commits a crime but say they have diplomatic immunity from prosecution it is like meh, no point in exposing the crime, they cant be prosecuted. Ridiculous. He made the purpose of his actions very clear in his own words in those chat logs. If you will use those logs to convict you can bet your ass i can use them to show mannings intents as he voiced them to someone he trusted explicitly. So again, when you say he was pissed off and wanted revenge, but wont cough up a morsel of proof of that you can throw your assertion in the bin. It is junk.

And don't forget. I said Manning DID break the law. He committed a crime to report thousands of crimes. Murders of civilians, torture, spying on the UN. Are you seriously going to compare those crimes to data theft inorder to reveal them? What next, will you list the crime of breaking an entering by the citizens commission to investigate the FBI as equal to the crimes uncovered by them?

en.wikipedia.org...'_Commission_to_Investigate_the_FBI

As for this gem.

Shame on you for supporting the criminals in the governments of those countries listed through your silence.

Really? Honestly? You actually just said that. Unlike you sir, i judge with an equal bar, those crimes, committed by any nation are a disgrace, and i have plenty to say about all those countries but not in a topic on bradley manning. How shamefully underhanded of you to even say it.

Manning is a hero, he is showing to the world what the US government has been doing secretly. It is NOT acceptable to kill civilians from a drone/helicopter and laugh about it.

It is NOT acceptable in a democracy to prosecute people who revealed war crimes and leave the people who committed the war crimes free.

I hate the direction this is all going, and the fact that some people here support this decision. Please may someone come to our help and wake up these people