Glenn Greenwald: The intellectual cowardice of Bradley Manning’s critics

[Better Believe It]

The intellectual cowardice of Bradley Manning’s critics
December 24, 2011

Ever since Manning was accused of being the source for the WikiLeaks disclosures, those condemning these leaks have sought to distinguish them from Ellsberg’s leak of the Pentagon Papers. With virtual unanimity, Manning’s harshest critics have contended that while Ellsberg’s leak was justifiable and noble, Manning’s alleged leaks were not; that’s because, they claim, Ellsberg’s leak was narrowly focused and devoted to exposing specific government lies, while Manning’s was indiscriminate and a far more serious breach of secrecy. When President Obama declared Manning guilty, he made the same claim: “No it wasn’t the same thing. Ellsberg’s material wasn’t classified in the same way.”

One problem for those wishing to make this claim is that Ellsberg himself has been one of Manning’s most vocal defenders, repeatedly insisting that the two leaks are largely indistinguishable. But the bigger problem for this claim is how blatantly irrational it is. As Ellsberg clearly details in this Al Jazeera debate, he — Ellsberg — dumped 7,000 pages of Top Secret documents: the highest known level of classification; by contrast, not a single page of what Manning is alleged to have leaked was Top Secret, but rather all bore a much lower-level secrecy designation. In that sense, Obama was right: “Ellsberg’s material wasn’t classified in the same way” the secrets Ellsberg leaked were classified as being far more sensitive.

Nor, if the U.S. Government’s evidence is to be believed, can there be any doubt about the similarity in motives between the two leakers. Just as Ellsberg repeatedly explained that he could not in good conscience stand by and have the world remain ignorant of the government lies he discovered about the Vietnam War (a war he once supported and helped plan), so, too, did Manning repeatedly state that these leaks were vital for informing the world about the depths of brutality, corruption and deceit driving these wars (including one war to which he was deployed as a soldier) — all with the goal of triggering what he called “worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms.” In the purported chats he had, Manning described how the intense worldwide reaction to the video of an Apache helicopter shooting unarmed civilians and a Reuters journalist in Baghdad “gave me immense hope”; that’s because: “i want people to see the truth… regardless of who they are… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.” That is as pure an expression as possible of exactly what motivated Ellsberg as well.

What’s really going on here in this Manning v. Ellsberg comparison is pure intellectual cowardice. At this point — four decades after it happened — most people are unwilling to stand up and publicly condemn the Pentagon Papers leak. In progressive circles, it has long been entrenched dogma that Ellsberg’s leak was just and noble and that the Nixon administration’s efforts to prosecute Ellsberg were ignoble. Ellsberg has hero status, and deservedly so: he risked his life, literally, to expose to the world just how systematic and deliberate was the U.S. Government’s deceit about the Vietnam War and how heinous was the war itself.

Please read the full article at:

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/24/the_intellectual_cowardice_of_bradley_mannings_critics/


-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Punishing the whistleblower?
As Bradley Manning faces charges of espionage over the Wikileaks cables we ask if the US government is overreacting.
December 23, 2011

So, should Private Bradley Manning be on trial? And is the Obama administration being too tough on him?

Inside Story Americas with presenter Shihab Rattansi discusses with guests: Glenn Greenwald, a columnist for Salon.com who has covered the Manning case extensively; Daniel Ellsberg, the former military analyst and whistleblower who famously leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971; and Clifford May, a national security analyst and the president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

"I don't think justice can be done by court martial in this particular case because of the circumstances of the last 19 months. [If it comes to a court martial] this court martial [would be] incurably poisoned, I would say, by that misjudgement by President Obama."

Daniel Ellsberg, Pentagon Papers whistleblower

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2011/12/20111223133535524719.html?utm_content=automateplus&utm_campaign=Trial6&utm_source=SocialFlow&utm_medium=MasterAccount&utm_term=tweets

See the above program on YouTube at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=53Fs13hbPr4

[duhneece]

1. "...By exposing some of the worst atrocities committed by US forces in Iraq..."

Manning became a hero for me.

[EFerrari]

25. Iraq refused to renew our status of forces agreement because

Last edited Sun Dec 25, 2011, 05:02 AM - Edit history (1)

of the videos Manning released to Wikileaks - of the massacre of civilians.

He shortened the "war".

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Court Martial: "Lead the guilty man in for a fair trial and sentencing."

[sabrina 1]

3. Pretty much what Manning himself stated

about why he eventually, after struggling with the decision, decided to do what he did. If there had been someone for him to talk to, to get advice from, he might have done it differently, but he clearly saw it as his duty, as Ellsberg did, to expose crimes that were being ignored.

Ellsberg has hero status, and deservedly so: he risked his life, literally, to expose to the world just how systematic and deliberate was the U.S. Government’s deceit about the Vietnam War and how heinous was the war itself.

Dick Cheney is still running around defending torture with impunity and boasting about his use of it. So, if you believe that you are 'fighting for freedom' and then discover what Manning discovered, and he speaks very well for himself on this, what would you do? Many choose to remain silent, others kill themselves when they return home and cannot deal with what they were a part of as many have said.

Manning chose to expose the crimes. But nothing has been done about them. So was it a foolish decision?

[Robb]

4. Bit of a straw man there, Glenny.

I've not seen anyone make the argument that the leaks are different because of focus. Perhaps they have, but it's such a silly argument that an elegantly lazy writer like Greenwald can knock it down.

The more substantive argument to make that distinguishes the two leaks is the military status of the (alleged) leaker. The focus on the content of the leaks as being material to whether or not they were illegally leaked is as off-point as saying stealing from a rich person isn't against the law because they have lots of nice things and won't miss the jewelry.

"How much harm/good was done by an illegal act" is a question for sentencing. A perfect world would convict Manning if he did it, and reduce or remove his sentence to reflect the level of damage actually done.

[AtomicKitten]

5. His defense has been focused on mitigating the crime and consequences.

You are absolutely right; his defense team is looking ahead at sentencing.

[SlimJimmy]

7. +1 It's not a matter of *if* he leaked classified material, he did. It's a matter of the amount

of damage the leak produced. That will be the determining factor for the Court Martial to decide if and when they consider sentencing.

[Better Believe It]

17. So what if he leaked documents stamped "classified" by some government bureaucrat?

Manning did us all a public service.

Government and military officials routinely classify millions of documents every single year that have nothing to do with defending this nation or protecting us from terrorists or others that want to harm us.

We know from civil lawsuits and the Watergate revelations of the 1970's that most of these documents are rubber stamped "confidential" or "secret" in order to conceal illegal or undemocratic actions by the government and the classification has nothing to do with the security of the people, or as they prefer calling it "national security".

I haven't been harmed in the least by the Wikileaks revelations or Mannings activities. What about you "SlimJimmy"?

And why is it that many of those who claim that Manning has endangered American troops have been among the biggest supporters of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that have actually caused the death of thousands of U.S. soldiers?

Are they blind to that fact?

Thousands of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians have lost their lives or been maimed in these wars that Manning and Wikileaks opposed while the Manning/Assange haters have been silent on the GI's who have lost their lives in vane. Total silence! And they claim Manning's activities might endanger those soldiers! Bull shit!

So these apologists for the warmakers loudly proclaim Manning should serve the rest of his life behind bars because of their great concern for the well being of U.S. troops while at the same time they salute the perpetrators of the U.S. invasions who are in fact responsible for the very real death of U.S. soldiers!

Of course they are concerned about GI's. Sure they are. Just like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were so very concerned.

[SlimJimmy]

28. What you said is not the point. When he was granted access to classified documents, he signed

saying he would not disclose them in an unauthorized way. There is no in between or shades of grey in that. Think of it from a traffic standpoint. If I am caught speeding, I am guilty. But if at trial I say I was speeding to get a heart attack victim to the hospital, that will weigh quite heavily at my sentencing.

We can't just set aside laws because we *think* the person did the right thing. That's for the court martial to decide.

[Better Believe It]

30. You compare the governments court martial of Manning to you getting a speeding ticket!!! ???

"Think of it from a traffic standpoint. If I am caught speeding, I am guilty. But if at trial I say I was speeding to get a heart attack victim to the hospital, that will weigh quite heavily at my sentencing."

Yikes!!!

The government will not decide if Manning did the right, honorable and patiotic thing.

The government trial is being organized to convict him of revealing secrets that the government and military brass wanted to withhold from the American people and world public opinion .... including secrets about government lies and activities that have led to the deaths of thousands of GI's and many more civilians.

Manning isn't being charged with a mere speeding violation that might cost him a fine. He is being charged with treason and aiding terrorists that can put him in prison for the rest of his life!

Don't you understand the difference?

We don't "think" Manning did the right thing. Progressives know he did the right thing just like Daniel Elsberg and Assange did the right thing!

[treestar]

34. The speeding analogy was to try to get a point across

Any two things can be compared or an analogy used to explain something.

[SlimJimmy]

51. The principal is the same regardless of the severity of the crime. You are making an argument from

the standpoint of emotion. I am making an argument based on the fact that he signed a non-disclosure agreement. When he disclosed the information, he knew what would happen. It is up to the court to decide if he should be punished for it. The fact that we as progressives think he did the right thing, has nothing to do with it.

[dougolat]

32. Remember Nuremburg?

The Allies made a big show establishing the precident that obeying illegal orders is a crime (even a capital crime!), and the oath to uphold the Constitution applies as well.
Basic C.Y.A. procedures now make everything that could conceivably become embarasing "Secret."

[SlimJimmy]

50. It's not an *illegal* order to safeguard classified material per the agreement he signed. (nt)

[JackRiddler]

63. Exposing war crimes is a higher moral priority than fulfilling contractual non-disclosure.

As you say, "There is no in between or shades of grey in that."

[SlimJimmy]

66. It's not *contractual*, it's federal law. Non-disclosure agreements are punitive. IOW

they are criminal offenses. There is no in between or shades of grey in that.

[JackRiddler]

67. When you speak of signatures and oaths, it's contractual...

as well as, in this case, subject to punitive law. Regardless, call it what you like.

Taking as my precedent the body of law introduced by the US-led Allies in the Nuremberg trial, which serves as the foundation of modern international law, I am willing to argue (and much smarter people than me with legal degrees will also argue) that if one is confronted with war crimes like the ones Manning saw and learned about, it is much worse thing (morally and as a violation of the law) to fall silent than to break a non-disclosure agreement that becomes invalid once it is used as an instrument of complicity in war crime after the fact.

Not that I would want to prosecute the thousands of enlisted men who played their small part in covering up war crimes (ending the crimes, dismantling the criminal organization and prosecuting the primary criminals should be our concern). But I do wonder why, out of so many soldiers exposed to the same information, only Manning (allegedly) displayed enough conscience and courage to do the right thing, and expose the war crimes.

[SlimJimmy]

68. The *smart* legal people would tell you that he had other options within the law, and chose not to

use them. (military whistle blower protections, Inspector General, or US Congress) They'd also say that he didn't vette anything close to the 250k documents he released. They'd opine that unless he was certain each document contained some evidence of a war crime, his defense would collapse.

And finally, they would argue that he is not being prosecuted under *international law*, but under military and federal law. Both of which apply in his case.

[JackRiddler]

69. Who has suggested that Manning is being prosecuted under international law? The point rather is...

that the criminals he helped to expose are not being prosecuted under international or any other law, although they should and must be before the US government is ever again to claim legitimacy or the status of a civilized nation.

Elements of the United States government planned and committed a war of aggression on several nations, but the case of Iraq is clear-cut and especially monstrous. A plan was devised over years, a pretext was invented, a campaign of lies was waged against the American people, and an aggression was launched on a nation that posed no threat to them. Hundreds of thousands are dead as a direct consequence or predictable result, millions are maimed, traumatized and displaced, the wealth and well-being of a people is shattered, an ecology has been poisoned.

The planners and perpetrators are known. The government and its agencies have committed a long series of foreign aggressions in recent decades. In the words of Martin Luther King, it still represents "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." Covert aggressions have been among the most frequent and significant of its crimes; the State Department has been a tool and cover for these crimes, as well as more of a pedestrian water-carrier for private corporate interests regardless of the interests of the people (as the cables have usefully documented).

Under the doctrines of international law introduced and propagated by the Allied victors of World War II, (in an effort that the US spearheaded) soldiers and civil servants have a duty to resist the machinery of aggression. In the aftermath of military aggression and genocide by states that conferred on themselves the mantle of legalism, the Nuremberg doctrines defined a category of crime so obvious to any natural human being and so heinous by nature that it cannot be protected by devices of written law; such a regime can arrange the law to render its murders are legal, but that does not make it so. All regime members and servants have a duty to resist such crimes, and cannot use the following of orders as their excuse for committing them.

Assuming the allegations against him are true, Manning followed his duty to this higher law, which again, I must emphasize: is based in doctrine devised by the United States. He had no duty to follow the legalistic channels you mention (IGs and whistleblower "protections," that is a laugh) by which such crimes are usually not revealed, but rather covered up and minimized. The murders he witnessed on the Apache helicopter video had already been covered up for years.

As long as the regime criminals, whose crime reached genocidal proportions, remain unpunished, this government has no claim to legitimacy in the area of "national security" and the idea is absurd that Manning is being prosecuted for revealing truth (under whatever torturedly precised rendering of laws protecting precious and usually overclassified memos) while the planners and mass murderers are free and prosper and to a large extent still in power. He is defamed and called a traitor while everyone from the architects of war crimes to the animals who massacred civilians and their rescuers from aerial fortresses in a country they had invaded as aggressors go untouched. It's some kind of bitter joke.

The cult of secrecy, the idea that several million people have "clearance" to know the practical aspects of what a supposedly democratic government does, but the citizen in whose name this government commits its crimes have no right to know how their taxes are spent, is essential to enabling crimes and protecting the criminals.

Manning's prosecution is rendered all the more absurd by the self-evident period of torture practiced on him for most of the 18 months of his detention, most of that time without charges. The treatment and harsh further punishments planned against Manning (ridiculously disproportionate) are meant as a frightful example to all others who would follow their consciences.

[SlimJimmy]

72. Soldiers and civil servants have an obligation under federal law to not disclose classified material

18 USC 798. Disclosure of classified information

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. [/div class]

Not withstanding your previous and lengthy reply, there is a clearly and well defined federal code that guides his actions. There is no so-called *higher* law as you describe. That is a construct for debate, but does not trump federal code. He had *other* options. I have stated in a previous reply what those were. You chose not to address them, and he chose not to avail himself of them.

[JackRiddler]

75. Resistance to state aggressions may come in ways your mentality finds chaotic or illegal...

You can cite the laws you and the military think he broke, but if he was the leaker he obeyed a higher law, one that is also largely codified in international law.

This doesn't change which is the greater crime.

This is the point your replies consistently evade: Who committed the war of aggression, and who acted to expose some of its crimes?

Manning had a right and duty to resist and to hinder the workings of the war machine and its cover-ups, and degrees of shame attach not to him but to the hundreds of thousands who followed orders in committing an illegal act of aggresion.

Why is there only one Bradley Manning? that is what should disturb us. By comparison, thousands of members of the draft army after 1968 brought the genocidal aggression in Vietnam to a standstill with non-compliance and mutiny. All Manning did, allegedly, was to expose documents that reveal truth about USG crimes and policy. Like Ellsberg before him - who was also exposed to much the same accusations and propaganda and threats. Both obeyed a higher law, one that happens also to be codified in international treaty and conventions based in the Nuremberg doctrines that are one of the United States' truly noble accomplishments. Manning upheld his oath: to protect the US constitution against enemies foreign and domestic.

Does it mean nothing to you that no one has been prosecuted for the war of aggression and the war crimes committed against the people of Iraq?

[SlimJimmy]

77. And he violated federal law when he disclosed classified material to those not authorized to receive

it. He had *other* options which would have *not* violated the law, but he chose to ignore them. If you don't want to acknowledge that, then we have nothing further to discuss.

Manning upheld his oath: to protect the US constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. [/div class]

[JackRiddler]

78. Excuse me, can you think of a government that violated all laws and its own Constitution...

and killed or caused the death of hundreds of thousands?

In an aggressive war? The worst of all crimes against humanity, "for it contains within it the whole"? (In the words of the Nuremberg prosecutors.)

Can you once acknowledge who the greatest lawbreaker of all here is?

Resistance to aggressive war is a duty, and if the aggressor state holds that its own laws were violated (in this case by a strictly non-violent and morally honorable action), then so be it.

[SlimJimmy]

79. I've explained repeatedly that he had other options sans his criminal activity.

That you completely ignore that fact and continue with your diatribe is not my problem. The facts are on my side on this one. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

[JackRiddler]

81. Yes, he had the option of being ignored and ineffective.

At risk to his own life (he has suffered torture and may yet be threatened with the death penalty), Manning chose a path that was effective and powerful, and really has changed the world for the better. You would have had him file some forms (after which he'd be "gently" ostracized and harrassed out of the service, but of course not because of his action, oh no) and then wait a few years for the predictable denouement of no disclosure or an ineffective redacted disclosure that the corporate media ignore. He chose instead to deny the legitimacy of the criminals who were running the show, to give out as many of their dirty secrets as he had access to, to gum up their machinery. That's right, he allegedly broke the law - to perform an effective resistance against war criminals who were breaking far more important laws.

Your many repeats of the same narrow point show less concern about the crime of aggressive war than about the legalities of how one man chose to (non-violently!) resist it.

[SlimJimmy]

82. He risked his own life by contacting the IG, his Congressman, the Military whistleblower act?

That's laughable on its face.

[JackRiddler]

83. You seem to misunderstand what I wrote: He risked his own life by doing what he actually did.

If he'd gone your way, he would have risked a lot less (no doubt harrassment and ostracization pretending to be unrelated to his whistleblower filing). He would have also accomplished nothing.

Are you ever going to acknowledge that the USG committed a war of aggression in Iraq?

[SlimJimmy]

84. Are you ever going to admit that he broke federal law when he had other options?

That's what I thought.

[JackRiddler]

86. I just said, that if the allegations are true...

Then he broke federal law. And as you have pointed out, he did have the option of being completely ineffective and making no difference whatsoever.

I have also said that Manning was confronted with evidence of crimes against humanity in the course of a war of aggression, the worst and most systematic crimes possible. Under the Nuremberg doctrine originally propagated by the United States, he had a duty to resist that, whether or not it breaks some non-disclosure provisions of the aggressor regime's law.

Now, will you answer my question: Did the US conduct a war of aggression? Were war crimes committed? Were these covered up? Did anyone have a right and duty to resist, even by illegal means?

[SlimJimmy]

88. First, we don't know if using other means would have been ineffective - he never used them.

So your reply is disingenuous at best.

To answer your question, I never supported, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although I don't believe they were illegal (congress voted to authorize them) I do believe they were conducted in an aggressive manner, and war crimes were committed. However, there are other means in which to deal with those allegations. Releasing 250k pieces of unvetted classified information to an unauthorized entity is not it.

Now, will you answer my question: Did the US conduct a war of aggression? Were war crimes committed? Were these covered up? Did anyone have a right and duty to resist, even by illegal means? [/div class]

[JackRiddler]

89. Do you see paradox in your strict advocacy of the disclosure law's letter when resisting war crime?

Also, do you imagine any other non-violent action that Manning could have done, legal or illegal, that would have been more effective in that resistance than what he did?

[SlimJimmy]

90. I don't know how to get you to understand that he had *other* options. You seem to think that

they weren't viable but haven't offered any proof whatsoever why that is so.

[JackRiddler]

92. No, your suggestion is laughable as a viable way to resist and expose war crimes.

You're saying he should take the evidence he'd seen of war crimes and the thousands of reports establishing the truth about US-led carnage in Iraq to the institution that was reponsible, to the institution that had conducted the cover-ups of the crimes, and urge them, magically persuade them to release the material that made the military look bad.

File some forms, wait a few years! As soon as he'd speak about classified information, he'd already be exposed to a more quiet prosecution than the one he's getting. It's naive of you to think the investigation he would have prompted by using internal channels would not primarily have been of him as a security threat!

Of course he did the right thing, a heroic act that changed the world, knowing that he was risking his freedom and his life in doing so. He violated disclosure provisions to expose previously unknown facts about the commission of war crimes that the responsible military had covered up. He struck a blow against the secrecy and extreme classification system that allows the state to be above the law and beyond the reach of democracy.

[SlimJimmy]

93. My suggestion is the law - and what he should have followed.

Your method is what got him in trouble, and what will probably imprison him for years, if not life. What he did was not heroic, it was stupid; releasing hundreds of thousands of unvetted documents to an unknown entity was naive at best. No, you will never convince me that what he did was heroic, or necessary.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

[ljm2002]

9. Many have made the argument...

...that Manning's purported leak is bigger and broader, i.e. "less focused" than Ellsberg's was. If you have not seen that argument made then you have not been paying attention. As for the phrase "an elegantly lazy writer", it is both ad hominem and inaccurate and hardly lends weight to your own arguments.

Next you try and change the terms of debate, and make the claim that a non-military person can leak Top Secret documents in service of a greater good, but a soldier cannot leak Secret documents in the same cause -- and that the Secret vs. Top Secret status of the released documents is an irrelevant detail. It is an absurd argument. The only place where Ellsberg's and Manning's civilian vs. soldier status is relevant is in discussions of what legal proceedings will occur. It has nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to do with the inherent rightness or wrongness of the acts themselves.

So to recap: first you state that "no one" has made an argument about the relative focus of the leaks, which is untrue; then you try and change the argument to one you are more comfortable with, namely that Manning was a soldier and therefore forfeited any ability to act on his conscience. Finally you claim that Secret vs. Top Secret is irrelevant (I have no doubt that, were the Secret / Top Secret classifications reversed, you would be shouting from the rooftops that Manning released Top Secret documents!!!). In other words, you are the perfect illustration of Greenwald's main thesis, namely, that many of Manning's critics are intellectually inconsistent.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. Second all of that

nt

[Boston_Chemist]

11. Morality is not defined by a circuitous minutiae laid out in a rule book.

It is defined by other things. Moral people have the bad habit of getting into trouble with the rulemakers, and the punishment of truly moral people will often depend on reasoning that ignores morality, but embraces the "rule book."

The authorities have the choice of considering the supra-legal morality of a case. In the case of Bradley Manning, the choice to prosecute is an intimidatory act aimed at us, the American people.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. +1 Well said.

[JackRiddler]

76. I do believe: Exactly right.

[Matariki]

13. Attempts at belittling the article's author by calling him "Glenny" is transparent

and only proves the title of his piece.

[Boston_Chemist]

26. Is "Glenny" your buddy now?

Do the two of you drink beers together?

Tell us more about this special relationship you enjoy with "Glenny".

[Vattel]

48. Why do you think his military status distinguishes his case from Ellsberg's?

[JackRiddler]

65. Apparently because an oath to obey trumps all other moral imperatives.

Sure, there is god or philosophy, but far above that is the chain of command and the military rule book.

The Wehrmacht defense.

[TwilightGardener]

62. Good post.

[SidDithers]

6. Greenwald. LOL...nt

Sid

[Scurrilous]

10. I believe he has a complaint.

[Matariki]

15. Now *there's* an 'intellectually courageous argument.

LOL yourself.

[great white snark]

16. Why waste intellect or anything else on Greenwald?

For a PUMA tool LOL is enough.

[Matariki]

22. man, meet straw

your brilliant commentary attacking the author instead of the content is the very definition of FAIL.

[rhett o rick]

23. Dont waste your intellect. nm

[dsc]

45. Prove he endorsed Clinton in the primaries

I would be astonished if he had.

[fascisthunter]

61. another dur

goofy

[Union Scribe]

70. I guess when one has so precious little to spare...nt

[Robb]

27. You never really loved him!!

[Bluenorthwest]

42. Here's what I notice....

It is always amusing to me that the segment of posters who sneer at Glenn without any actual content to the sneering also sneer at many of Glenn's community members when we oppose other Obama policy, such as 'Only Newt is Sanctified, Not Glenn'. In the Senate, as we all know, Obama opposed the Uniting American Families Act, which would end discrimination in immigration against gay couples. We do not get the same rights as straight couples under US immigration laws, Obama said that to treat us equally was a threat to 'national security' so he went with the GOP and against Kerry on that.
Funny how it just works out that all gay men who want equal rights get the one line snark and remark treatment. No real reasons, just sneering dismissal. I think it is a fear of saying what they think, for they know that would sink them quickly.

[Vattel]

49. Have you ever made a substantive comment in any discussion?

I have never seen one. Why bother wasting your time and everyone else's if this is the best you can do?

[Union Scribe]

71. And that's a "host" nt

[Bobbie Jo]

74. and?

[QC]

85. No. n/t

[fascisthunter]

60. SidDithers. LOL...

... as if.

[gratuitous]

8. Not to mention the standard military excuse

"Military folks will refuse an illegal order." Well, there appear to be lots and lots of illegal orders that were not only issued, but followed. For some odd reason, the military, the commander-in-chief and the Department of Justice seem focused solely on who exposed those orders and how it might have been done.

[Boston_Chemist]

12. The institutional pressure to obey in the military is enormous.

It takes an epic hero of the ages to cut through the bullshit, and refuse an order. This is a good reason why Mr. Manning is an important person.

[hobbit709]

38. Exactly! The pressure and threats brought down on you for even thinking about doing something

are enormous.
One time my CO asked me why I couldn't do as I was told and keep my mouth shut.
My reply was "I could do as I'm told, no matter how wrong I think it is, but there's one little problem with that"
He asked "What's that?"
My answer "I don't like the taste of shit"

[Boston_Chemist]

55. Haha ... How far did you make it in the military?

With that attitude, perhaps ...PFC?

Look at those Generals, the ones with lots of stars. They've made it quite far. Now think about how much shit they've had to taste on their way there. I promise you that each and every single one is in dire need of expert psychotherapy.

[hobbit709]

56. Despite everything, I made it to E-4.

[russspeakeasy]

14. Glenn Greenwald is one of the very best.

Read "Liberty and Justice For Some". It is excellent.

[sabrina 1]

19. Greenwald is one of the best, he has been completely consistent throughout

the past decade and continues to be regardless of which party is in power.

This country needs far more journalism like this.

No wonder he was on the hit list exposed by Anonymous. Too much truth is toxic to those who are guilty.

[Peregrine]

20. Never compared qthese two

Both did commit crimes. I'm sorry releasing classified information is against the law. Ellsberg escaped conviction due to illegal FBI wiretaps and the a burglary of elsbergs psychiatrist.

Mannings only defense would be if the information was illegally classified. But it seems that this is not his defense.

His mental state can only mitigate his sentence. And his intent as well.

I have no problem with the information and being released my wikileaks. But even heros that violate the law should be jailed.

[cstanleytech]

29. It sucks but I reluctantly have to agree if Manning leaked the information he needs to held

accountable, just wish certain others (Bush, Cheney) were held accountable for their actions to.

[Better Believe It]

31. "even heros that violate the law should be jailed" How many years do you think Manning should get?

And how many do you think Daniel Ellsberg should have gotten?

20 years for Ellsberg and life for Manning .... at hard labor?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

91. A lot longer for Manning than for Ellsberg.

Ellsberg knew roughly what was in the documents he was releasing; he made an informed decision that it was in the public interest to release it. That's not a defence, but it's a mitigating factor.

Manning released a vast quantity of classified documents whose contents he didn't have a clue about. That means that there's no way he can claim that he thought the public needed to know it, either, or that he was exposing wrongdoing, or that he had reason to believe it wouldn't endanger anyone.

Both the sentences you propose are grossly excessive, but I think that a significant number of years in jail would probably be appropriate for Manning.

[Better Believe It]

94. How long do you think Ellsberg and Manning should rot in prison ....

for defending the Constitution?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

95. They should not rot in prison for defending the constitution. N.T.

[EFerrari]

47. Brad Manning and Wikileaks have been critcized and even threatened

at every level of our government and in the media. He was physically abused in custody. The proceedings against him are profoundly corrupt and a disgrace to this country.

[bvar22]

21. K&R for Glenn Greenwald

One of Democracy's more vocal patriots.
Government "Of the People" is NOT possible without Watch Dogs and WhistelBlowers.
The Obama Administration has proven to be worse than the previous administration in this area.

Bad Things Happen when those in power attack and silence those who would hold them accountable.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[rhett o rick]

24. Cheney set the precedence for leaking confidential information.

Authoritarians dont like whistle blowers. Sadly some here in DU agree with them.

[bemildred]

57. And for walking free. nt

[Scuba]

33. Manning is a true American hero. n/t

[treestar]

35. Anyone who disagrees with him is an "intellectual coward?"

Mere ad hominem.

No one even talks about what information the guy released. How could it have been whistle blowing? No particular wrongs were revealed that are of enough interest to be discussed.

[bread_and_roses]

37. "No particular wrongs were revealed that are of enough interest to be discussed"

You simply cannot be serious?

[Kolesar]

41. Greenwald uses hyperbole to attract people to his long polemic essays that lack continuity...

...and thus are especially hard to follow.

BTW, the "man on the street", Glenn Greenwald now lives in another country: Brazil.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. Greenwald is a forced ex-pat as the US will not allow gay people to bring our partners

to the US. So how courageous it is to attack him for being subjected to discriminatory laws! How intellectually honest it is to use against him that which is forced onto him by bigots.
Stay classy.

[Kolesar]

52. His reporting stinks for many reasons, ...

and I am not "attacking" him because he is gay

[Bluenorthwest]

58. You are using against him that which is forced on him due to discimination

It is exactly like chiding a gay couple for not getting married when we are not permitted that right, as if it was a choice. Really shitty. Really, really, really shitty.
His reporting? Don't know. Don't read him often at all. He could hold horrid opinions, it would still suck to use that against him, understand? If he was a right wing, full tilt GOPer, it would still suck to use that against him.
It is unfair and it indicates a lack of respect for all of us. Period. Naff, tacky, shitty and right wing McCarhty style politics of personal destruction.
Your community demands that ours is treated unfairly. You are not allowed to turn around and place that on US. Not without getting told it sucks, stinks, and smells to the sky.

[Bluenorthwest]

43. Of course, that is not what he says at all. He says the critics of Manning are cowardly

in their methods of criticism. Not anyone who disagrees with Glenn.
It is telling that so often the offenses taken by some segments of DU require them to rewrite and reword the 'offending statement'. Why not take issue with what was actually said? Could it be a lack of courage? I think so.

[dsc]

46. actually he says the opposite in his piece

which I actually read, unlike you. Those who condemn both Ellsburg and Manning he says are not intellectual cowards but consistent in their thinking.

[bread_and_roses]

36. K&R (n/t)

[Starry Messenger]

39. k&r

[Zhade]

53. Manning is a hero. His critics are tools and fools.

In the spirit of the holidays, I invite them to go suck coal.

[Karmadillo]

54. K&R

[fascisthunter]

59. Thanks for Exposing the Truth and the BS, Glenn

[William769]

64. Recommended.

[WillyT]

73. K & R !!!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

80. One difference is obvious to anyone not deliberately ignoring it: Ellsberg knew what he was leaking.

Ellsberg leaked a few thousand pages of documents; he knew roughly what they contained and had decided that he wanted the public to know that.

Manning leaked the best part of a hundred times as much stuff, much of which he didn't have a clue about the contents of, which removes all possibility of a "this was information the public a right to" defence - he didn't know or care whether that was the case or not.

Manning belongs in jail, sadly. He seems a decent man, but that doesn't change the fact that he committed a serious criminal offence. I don't know enough about Ellsberg's case to comment on whether he should have been punished or not informedly.

[MjolnirTime]

87. Manning has admitted leaking classified info. He did the crime, he'll do the time.

Even though he thought it justified, he did not report it as a whistleblower.

He leaked it to a foreigner.