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.

 

US soldier who gave info to Wikileak nominated for nobel peace prize!

page: 4
56
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Wow.. you have it so backwards. Manning is the one that took all the risk and actually did something. Wikileaks just produced the stage. I will never understand people that think Manning did something terrible.
He showed us some of the crimes the US was committing and pointed out the massive failing in the classification system.

He is much more deserving of that prize than Obama. Obama started wars, Manning tried to shed light on them.
edit on 1-3-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Did he expose crimes commited by our Military and the Gov?

Yes he did.

No soldier takes an oathe of blind loyalty, in fact it is critical that soldiers stand up to orders that are unlawful or expose crime where it is found, not sweep it under the rug.

I myself am a vet and it takes courage to do what Manning did, he deserves the prize.

More power to him I say!



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by Tennessee77
It is very common for companies to require employees to sign confidentiality contracts before they will allow you to work for them. You have to sign it before you know anything about the inner workings of the business or what standards of ethics they hold. Now, imagine you are hired by a company which is portrayed by it's recruting staff to be the pinnacle example of proper ethics, honor, and integrity.

What do you do then, when you find out that the product your company makes is killing literally millions of innocent men, women, children?

Me, I would report my findings to the relevant law enforcement or product safety agency. Bradley Manning could have done that. Bradley could have gone to CID, or his congressman, or a number of other persons with his alleged evidence of wrongdoing. But he didn't. He gave it to an international broker of stolen information. And 99% of it wasn't even evidence of alleged crimes. The "Bradley Manning--Crusading Exposer of Corruption" boat don't float.


When you catch the fox in the hen house, you don't complain to the other foxes.
If he hadbrought this up to his superiors it would have been covered up. Actually these crimes were already actively being covered up, so he knew this info would never see the light of day unless he turned it over to the world public. Or would you rather not know?

This is a very clear message to me. We know that this guy uncovered the fact that American military leaders were actively covering up war crimes. Can anyone dispute this?

Keeping the knowledge of these crimes and hiding the evidence is in itself a crime.
He released the info to the only people who would listen and have a possibility to do anything about it, the world at large. This action, and those like it are necessary for checks and balance in a system that is supposed to be policing itself and portrays itself as the pinnacle of justice, but then we find out they are hiding the killing of civilians. This is the pinnacle of the corruption that is undermining the global society and well being of all humans on this planet.

He uncovered crimes. Nuff said. Wake up.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Wrabbit2000,
I do think the Nobel Peace Prize is a little far...and respect everyones opinion..But are you really going to condemn one man, call him a traitor for seeing the corruptness and ass backwardness of our own government? & Thank goodness had the balls to show those traitors faces? And share what really was going on? Who can really condemn and judge someone for knowing better than just rolling with the corruptness and horrible things our government was doing! This was for us, the citizens the people. We deserved to know. Im happy he just wasnt another lap dog to go 'Oh thats wrong, Oh well, lock and load anyways' No. He had morals. He was a real person who made a decision of worth. He did this for US! Not to betray his Country, Because All Along Our Country Has Been BETRAYING us, Or this lad would have had nothing to leak would he? Wake the F up! Thats just my opinion though, I thank you for yours for this debate. Love debates.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
This is American Saint Sebastian.

How many saints have America gave birth to?



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
If Obama is good enough for a Nobel Peace Prize, then Manning sure as hell deserves one.

If he's a traitor and deserves execution for pointing out the corrupt reality of these wars for profit, then what the hell should be done for Obama and the rest of our corporate overlords?

Am I seeing a double standard here?
Naw...couldn't be, because only the ones who expose the truth are traitors, not the ones that create them.

edit on 3-1-12 by reaxi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
The question of WHAT enemy benefited is so self evident I haven't thought it really important to reiterate.

I'm talking about proper court procedure. If someone is charged with something then the norm is to name names. The fact that no enemy was named in the formal charges makes me believe that they threw it in just to see if it would stick but probably won't.

They have even said that they are not going to ask for the death sentence. To me it looks like even the prosecutor isn't sure that they have a case of treason.

The defense is actually built on the leaked information actually posing no threat. It isn't as black and white as you claim.
edit on 1-3-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


It would seem very strange for someone who was nominated for the peace prize to get the firing squad or hung. Not saying it couldn't happen.

IMO the Nobel Peace Prize is nothing more than a joke after they gave one to Obama in anticipation of what he was going to do. Guess he needs another 4 years to make everything peaceful and all.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


It would seem very strange for someone who was nominated for the peace prize to get the firing squad or hung. Not saying it couldn't happen.

IMO the Nobel Peace Prize is nothing more than a joke after they gave one to Obama in anticipation of what he was going to do. Guess he needs another 4 years to make everything peaceful and all.


I agree remember who the peace prize was created by as well... The guy who created dynamite... (dont believe me? Google it!) anyways... So since then its just be a "were sorry about something" award... Look at Obama getting it for proof..

Maybe they are sorry they didnt catch this guy faster!



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

blahblah


How is the murder of a journalist more important than some oath?

edit on 1/3/12 by Swamper because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/3/12 by Swamper because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
if obama can get it... then anyone can. anyone!



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by LonelyGuy
 


I heard they're now in specially marked Cheerios boxes



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Perhaps the counterargument to your point would be that upon witnessing the horrors of the military industrial complex, he felt the need to break his oath and create awareness in the world of the atrocities taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is willing to accept whatever punishment he receives, for he has acted altruistically.

As long as we turn a blind eye to injustice, injustice will reign. What Manning did, in my opinion, was remarkable, though Wikileaks should have really taken better steps in protecting the identity of those in the leaked cables.

Does he deserve a Peace Prize nomination? Sure. Will he be able to physically receive one? Fat chance. His life as a free man is over.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by LonelyGuy
 


Obama should return his. What a disgrace.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Seems like the ignorant, knuckle dragging slappys for TPTB are out in force today. This man did the right thing. He exposed heinous acts of terrorism performed by people in our military. Are you so i love with the US government or military that you just don't see that, or do you choose not to?



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

Wikileaks should have really taken better steps in protecting the identity of those in the leaked cables.




No, they absolutely should not have. The identity of those bloodthirsty animals should be paraded all over the world every single day.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I'm sure you feel the same about many in our government, right? Treason by training enemy combatants and giving away military secrets as well as funding an empire with taxpayer money, and using propaganda as a means of controlling the citizens of America for the last 80 years.

Treason is a pretty broad term, and if you're going to start "hanging" people for it, then i suggest you look at all the possible suspects. Some would argue sending US Soldiers off to war, and die, over resources but sell the war through a story about "weapons" -- for personal gains -- might be considered treason to the citizens, as well as traitors to the country.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   


Little Bradley did nothing so honorable or noble.
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Here we go again. How dare someone call out the powers in charge on their illegal piece of # activities?

Yes, lets' just ignore what they do and chastise someone who has risked his life to out many reams of "classified" information, to heck with his own motives.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


So, still absolutely no mention of that fact that "legal codes" are being violated by those in power themselves, that treason is being committed by the those at the top in actual fact, regardless of whether Manning is committing treason simply "on paper".

Do you really not see how wrong you are in this regard?

I've never understood the mentality, and it's far from being just you.

The whole "punish the messenger who revealed the hushed up crimes that were hidden from us" attitude, true sheep we are.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by DangerDeath
 

Just a point to clairfy.. Daniel Ellsburg brought things into the open. He risked his neck for it. I respect that man deeply for it. Manning didn't come into the open and hid like the rat he was until he was dug out by investigation.

If Manning had taken his data and publicly released it, to stand for his beliefs for all to see, it'd be night/day different. If he were standing to take his lumps as a man of principle and conscience, it'd be a world of difference. He did none of that and lived right to the end, as I believe he is. A dirty little rat. May he meet the fate of one.

It *MAY* make some right for the men I absolutely believe his leaks led to the deaths of. This I feel as a 100% cold certain FACT. Men died by his actions. Now...if he feels it was worth it, then stand like a man and say so. Be a Martyr and let it all mean something.....at least it wouldn't be playing the weasel right to the end.



Wait...So your problem is not necessarily what Manning did but the fact that he didn't own up to it?

So the fact that he should stand trial and be shot is not for the fact that he released the info (because if he released it publicly and stood by it) but he should be shot for NOT standing up when he released it, even though he violated his oath?

Is that your logic?



Granted, i am not even arguing his intentions, (though that *might* factor in), i am questioning the reason why you think he should get the squad.

Because it seems like if he released the info by openly stood by it (even if he violated his oath) he should not face a squad? Is that also what you're saying? Because if the point is simply the oath, it should not matter if he stood in the open or not--he KNEW it was dangerous, and he put it out anyway. He stuck his neck out, too.

You're gonna have to clarify, because i am not following.

And what's wrong with "hiding?" Should everyone a part of a movement which is dangerous or unpopular come out in the open? Look through history at all the things people have done while hiding in order to aid a greater, more noble cause. Should they all just have stuck their heads out and said, "Here i am!"?

C'mon, man.



new topics




 
56
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join