Bradley Manning: A Hero, Not a Traitor

[Better Believe It]

Last edited Mon Dec 26, 2011, 01:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Bradley Manning: A Hero, Not a Traitor
by Marjorie Cohn
Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and past President of the National Lawyers Guild, is the deputy secretary general for external communications of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists.
December 25, 2011

Manning wrote: “If you had free reign over classified networks… and you saw incredible things, awful things… things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC… what would you do? God knows what happens now. Hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms… I want people to see the truth… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.“

The U.S. government considers Manning one of America’s most dangerous traitors. Months ago, Obama spoke of Manning as if he had been proved guilty, saying, “he broke the law.” But Manning has not been tried, and is presumed innocent in the eyes of the law. If Manning had committed war crimes instead of exposing them, he would be a free man today.

Besides helping to end the Iraq war, the leaked cables helped spark the Arab Spring. When people in Tunisia read cables revealing corruption by the ruling family there, they took to the streets.

If Manning did what he is accused of doing, he should not be tried as a criminal. He should be hailed as a national hero, much like Daniel Ellsberg, whose release of the Pentagon Papers helped to expose the government’s lies and end the Vietnam War.

Read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/12/25


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


History Will Judge Bradley Manning And Laud Him For Telling The Truth
A former career intelligence officer and longtime critic of America's overseas debacles compares Bradley Manning to America's greatest patriots.
By Ray McGovern
Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
December 21, 2011

It’s also instructive to see how selective prosecutions work in Official Washington. Manning may face life imprisonment for exposing the slaughter of civilians and other serious crimes (as well as for revealing the absurd over-classification of U.S. government documents).

However, when President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney confess that they ordered waterboarding and other acts that have long been regarded as illegal torture, they and their subordinates are spared prosecution, presumably because to do otherwise would stir up a political mess.

Suddenly, clear violations of the law must be set aside as being outweighed by larger national considerations, i.e. political comity in Washington. But no such balancing act is available to spare Pvt. Manning possible life imprisonment for truth-telling, even when many experts believe much good has come from the disclosures, including inspiration for the Arab Spring’s ouster of dictators whose brutality and corruption were frankly described in the WikiLeaks cables.

Daniel Ellsberg has called Bradley Manning a hero, and that’s what he is. We need to find ways to tell the American people the full story. These days, they are not going to get the whole truth (or anything close to it) from the New York Times.

Read the full article at:

http://www.alternet.org/story/153539/history_will_judge_bradley_manning_and_laud_him_for_telling_the_truth/?page=entire


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



In the Year of the Protester, Bradley Manning is the Great Dissenter
by Davin O'Dwyer
December 24, 2011

There are many lessons to be learned from the Manning case, but the most pertinent is the one that we are conditioned to most assiduously ignore, however instinctively we realize it to be true: secrecy tends to be corrosive to those who wield it, and unchecked secrecy, the sort of secrecy that Manning so bravely attempted to challenge, is always a sign that the corrosion itself is what’s being kept secret.

We might hope that a US president who convinced so many that he stood for change might appreciate someone who tried to engender some real change, but it’s unlikely that Manning’s principled bravery will be recognized and rewarded until after he has spent many years and maybe decades in prison.

Speaking to the press on Thursday, Ellsberg said, “Bradley Manning no more deserves to face charges of treason than I did. He no more deserves to be called a traitor than I do, because I am not.”

Manning’s current isolation emphasizes the bravest aspect of his protest: he did it on his own. He didn’t have a crowd wearing Guy Fawkes masks for support or an occupied square full of tents to call home. When the history of these unsettled times comes to be written, Manning’s lonely protest might well be seen as the most important of all.

Read the full article at:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2011/1224/1224309458306.html



Daniel Ellsberg

[dailey010]

1. Not my definition of a hero

I have to disagree with the notion of Manning being a hero. The general consensus among gay members of the military like myself is that he betrayed not only his country, but also the LGBT service members that were fighting for equality while he was leaking classified information. DADT wasn't easy for any of us, but we didn't break our oaths.

[Better Believe It]

13. "If Manning had committed war crimes instead of exposing them, he would be a free man today."

Manning is a hero to progressives. He defended our Constitution, our freedoms and helped to expose the warmakers who are undermining and betraying our Constitution and the American people. He took an oath to do that.

Didn't you take such an oath?

[Sheepshank]

132. oh ffs....this is so much bull. His actions were wrong

and since he didn't evern know all the info he was releasing, it was also incredibly stupid.

That 'some' of the information contatined info that is embarassing, and possibly warrants further investigation, doesn't justify the entirety of his actions.

[Better Believe It]

20. The right-wing homophobic lies and attacks on Bradley Manning

We've seen a mountain of right-wing attacks on and lies about Bradley Manning such as the following and we shouldn't give them any support.

Did you see this article?


Family Research Council Attacks Bradley Manning With Homophobic Lies
August 3, 2011

There is much speculation as to why Manning may have leaked these documents. But not to the Family Research Council. A post on the organization’s webpage says the following:

It turns out that Manning is an extreme homosexual activist, whose fury over the services’ homosexual policy may have led him to publicize highly classified documents about the wars. According to the U.K.’s Telegraph, Manning has an extensive history of campaigning for gay, lesbian, and transgendered causes and sources say he may have even been considering a sex change when he leaked military secrets on the Internet.

Although the U.S. press is relatively mum on his personal life, the British paper questions how Manning got away with “flaunting” his sexuality when DADT is still in effect.

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/08/03/family-research-council-distorts-british-article-in-attack-on-gay-soldier/

[WillyT]

24. Could You Please Explain...

The Enlistment Oath

"I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

And regarding orders...

*****************************************************************
Before the end of World War II, the Allies suspected such a defense might be employed, and issued the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), which specifically stated that following an unlawful order is not a valid defense against charges of war crimes.

Thus, under Nuremberg Principle IV, "defense of superior orders" is not a defense for war crimes, although it might influence a sentencing authority to lessen the penalty. Nuremberg Principle IV states:

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

****************************************************************

If Bradley Manning possessed evidence of war crimes, wasn't he supposed to divulge them ???

Seems like mixed messages to me.

[cstanleytech]

107. But how is releasing 260,000 diplomatic cables evidence of a war crime?

I could see the helicopter attack as being possible evidence of such a thing but I am a bit confused on how exactly those cables would be considered that.

[sabrina 1]

128. The cables revealed

eg, interference by the US in the prosecution of War Criminals from the Bush administration.

They revealed bribery in the Indian Elections, interference in many countries around the world. There is a pattern of US interference, and as Manning said, they revealed 'the first world interfering and helping oppress the third world'.

Anyone who has read just a few of them can see that pattern. What was revealed, eg, regarding the Indian elections nearly brought down the Indian Govt, as it should. Bribery in a democratic election is a crime and it was revealed in those cables.

There's lots more, but those are examples. They also revealed that the State Dept was spying on countries that were members of the UN in direct violation of UN rules and possibly illegally. One more example of what was revealed. And as I said, there is much, much more.

His hope, as he stated himself, was that the victimization of the third world would stop.

[cstanleytech]

131. Seems to me he had other options such as contacting

the inspector general though or even some members of congress and that would have been legal it appears so why didnt he do that?

[sabrina 1]

136. Yes, he could have done that. But he did report to his superior officer, the fact that detainees

he was in charge of handing over to the Iraqi police were being tortured. That didn't work, and he has said that it was that incident that placed him personally in a situation where something he was doing was harmful to others. He had read the 'charges' of the Iraqi government, that they were disseminating hateful, treasonous propaganda against the Iraqi PM, but when he read their literature, all it contained was mild criticism of his policies.

It's possible he did not think anyone would pay attention to him. He does say he had 'contacts' in DC, due to his interest in DADT. But he doesn't name them.

And he expresses a feeling of being 'isolated' and 'burdened' with what he had become aware of. Maybe if he had someone to confide in and give him advice, that would have been a better way to go, at least for his own sake. But do you think the material would ever have been made public had he done that? I think he knew it would not and that nothing would be done about any of it.

[cstanleytech]

143. "But do you think the material would ever have been made public had he done that?"

We will never now though since he decided to take it upon himself rather than using the legal ways open to him.

[sabrina 1]

153. I think we do know. The actions of this government when it comes to war crimes, tells us what

would have been done. Has anyone, other than a few underlings, despite the evidence exposed in the Abu Ghraib case eg, been held accountable? And what happened to the photos that showed even more egregios war crimes from US detention centers? The Government has fought for years to keep those photos from being seen by the public. And again, no one has been held accountable for what was revealed in them, rape, sodomy, murder. Even Rumsfeld admitted they would cause outrage if they were to be released. And isn't that what is needed, public outrage, if we mean what we say about not condoning torture and murder?

I think Manning considered all of that.

[hack89]

110. Why did he ignore the Military Whistleblower Protection Act?

he had a legal path to reveal those war crimes. He ignored it.

[WillyT]

216. Maybe He Felt HE Would Be Ignored... And I Think He Was Pretty Much Right...

[hack89]

220. The law says he can go to any member of Congress.

Every single progressive would ignore a war crime? Really?

[girl gone mad]

84. What oath did you take when you enlisted?

If I recall correctly, enlistees swear to defend the Constitution, not to protect politicians from embarrassment.

[MjolnirTime]

2. Manning admits he released classified information into the public domain. That is against the law.

[sabrina 1]

50. He witnessed war crimes. He reported them.

He understood the law, and wrestled with his conscience. What would any of us do if we knew that people were being tortured? Isn't that against the law also? Where are the charges for those crimes?

I don't think I would have had the courage to do what he did, but I wish I had.

[hack89]

111. Except he ignored the legal way to report them.

the Military Whistleblower Protection Act

[msanthrope]

193. Don't bring facts into this. nt

[seabeyond]

3. no hero. criminal. nt

[Better Believe It]

7. And do you also believe that Daniel Ellsberg was a traitor? How many years do you think

he should have served behind bars .... life perhaps?

[hack89]

14. Ellsberg knew exactly what he was releasing - Manning did not.

Ellsberg also did not release any information on current operations that could have endangered lives.

[Better Believe It]

23. So if Manning released the video of U.S. troops gunning down civilians what lives were endangered?

U.S. troops?

Yikes!

U.S. troops had no business being in Iraq in the first place!

Did you support Bush's invasion of Iraq and the administrations justification for the illegal invasion?

[hack89]

27. It was the tens of thousand of others things he never bothered to screen that concern me.

I would have more sympathy for him if the video was the only thing he stole. He stole what ever he could get his hands on and sent it to a total stranger without bothering to review what he sent - that is worthy of severe punishment.

[Better Believe It]

52. Such as ......

[hack89]

55. Are you saying he read everything he sent to Wikileaks? Really? nt

[EFerrari]

32. Manning did not release those files to the public but to a clearinghouse.

And the Pentagon itself cannot name a single person "harmed" by the leak. Can you? Besides Manning, that is?

[hack89]

35. So what? That is a meaningless distinction

that "clearinghouse" had no legal right to those files. Manning had no legal right to send them the files. Manning had no fucking clue what he sent them - he just got lucky.

He had legal ways to blow the whistle - he decided to break the law instead.

[Better Believe It]

62. Let's hope that many others follow Manning and Ellsberg's example of courage, patriotism and heroism

Civil rights demonstrators had no "legal" right to violate Jim Crow laws in the south.

But fortunately they did.

Ellsberg had no "legal" right to reveal "top secret" government files on Vietnam. But he did. Good for us!

Workers had no "legal" right to organize labor unions and to strike at one time. But they did. Good for them and all of us!

So this fetish in defense of laws written by the 1 percenters to protect and hide activities that are undermining our Constitution and human rights does not impress me.

So what sacred "law" did Manning possibly break?

He may have ignored petty government bureacrats who stamped the words "classified" on government documents in order to conceal that information from the American people. This classification routine is done to millons of government documents every year .... documents that have nothing to do with protecting the security and well being of the American people and are much about about protecting government and military officials from the people!

Let us hope that others will follow Manning and Ellsberg's examples of courage, patriotism and heroism.

[EFerrari]

83. Nope, it's not meaningless in the least

unless you are a government official attempting to cover up. Read something about Wikileaks and about all the government crimes they have responsibly leaked all over the world.

Your government has no right to hide its wrongdoing.

[hack89]

98. Unfortunately for Manning, Wikileaks used him like a Kleenex

Manning will go to jail for a very long time - Julian Assange goes free. Do you think Manning is having second thoughts?

[Luminous Animal]

101. So, did the NY Times use Ellsberg like a Kleenex?

Should Nixon have prosecuted the editors of the NY Times?

[hack89]

108. He did prosecute the editors

he lost. But the NY could make substantive First Amendment claims - Manning doesn't have a legal leg to stand on considering he ignored the Military Whistleblower Protection Act. He cannot argue that going to Wikileaks was his only alternative.

The NY times did not use Ellsberg - they knew they had a good legal case and it was unlikely he would go to jail. There was a lot of high power legal talent involved in that decision. Ellsberg was also not an immature, emotionally unstable 20 year old - he knew what he was doing and he had a valid motive.

Wikileaks didn't give a rat's ass about Manning.

[Luminous Animal]

116. No. Nixon sought prior restraint but did not prosecute the Times for publishing.

And FYI, Ellsberg was not acquitted but rather, he was freed due to a mistrial.

Wikileaks publicly supports Manning against both his prolonged incarceration and his prosecution.

[hack89]

122. OK. Manning is still no Ellsberg

All Manning had to do was comply with the Military Whistleblower Protection Act and he would not be in this mess. Ellsberg thought out what he was doing - Manning strikes me as simply immature and unstable, striking out at a military that he didn't fit into. Some mature reflection on his part could have resulted in the world seeing the video and him out of jail.

[sabrina 1]

129. Lol, Manning is an editor and publisher of a multiple award-winning International News Organization.

He certainly does have a leg to stand on. Why do you think the US Government has not charged him as they so badly want to do?

Manning was a source, as Deep Throat was and Ellsberg was to a News agency.

One of the first awards Assange and Wikileaks received, long before he published anything from the US, and before most Americans ever heard of him, was for his work as a News agency providing an outlet for the victims of a brutal, corrupt Kenyan Govt to reveal what they knew, safely, and risking his own life to do so.

If the US tries to prosecute an award-winning, International News Agency, they will have stooped to the level of any third world dictatorship and we can kiss 'freedom of the press' goodbye in this country. 1st Amend will join all the others that have been shredded.

[hack89]

133. You mean Assange? Well then why is he running away?

instead of fighting for important principles? The answer is easy - jail is OK for Manning but not for Assange.

All Manning had to do was use the Military Whistleblower Protection Act and he would be a true hero. Instead he got used like a dirty Kleenex by Assange. He will go to jail for a long time while Assange enjoys life.

[sabrina 1]

137. Running away? Is the US looking for him?

You can't be 'running away' from someone who is not looking for you, can you? So how is he running away? All he has to do to keep his promise to his sources is not to reveal who they are. And he has never done that.

[hack89]

142. I am sure that make Manning feel much better.

now how much money is Assange donating to Manning's defense? He has provided Manning the best lawyers possible, right? Of course not - Assange has no use for Manning now. Just like a used kleenex.

[sabrina 1]

156. Actually Wikileaks has donated money to Mannings defense.

And the worst thing that could happen for Manning would be to confirm the fairy tale made up by the government, that Manning was in collusion with Assange. Assange provided a place for whistle-blowers to go, from all over the world. The US is not the only country in the world, nor it is the only one whose 'secrets' were revealed to Wikileaks by whistle-blowers.

Do News Media generally insert themselves into cases like this and what is it you want him to do that would help Manning in any way? He has kept his promise to Manning and all of his sources so far. Has Manning or his attorneys called Assange as a witness? Clearly they do not see any benefit in Assange inserting himself into this case.

So what is your point? I'm not getting it, if there is one.

[hack89]

160. Don't really have a point - Manning going to jail is good enough.

Assange will get his sooner or later.

[sabrina 1]

178. And so will the NYT, the Washington Post, The Guardian and all other newspapers

who did what Assange does. Are you seriously, here on DU, advocating criminalizing news reporting???

If so I find that to be pretty stunning.

Most heroes have spent time in jail. As I said before, if taking actions that involved no risk were heroic, we'd all be heroes.

It takes extraordinary courage to take an action when you know you are putting yourself at risk by taking it, of losing your freedom and/or death.

Both of which applied to Manning, which is what makes him a hero.

[hack89]

189. I don't think the Swedes are after Assange for news reporting

but for Manning supporters "reporting" is a pretty flexible term so you never know.

As for Manning, he will disappear from sight and will be forgotten. He has changed nothing - life goes on as before. No one in power has been punished because of him, there is no ground swell of anger because of him. He pissed away his life for nothing.

[sabrina 1]

198. Well, if you ignore the toppling of dictators, eg, he 'has accomplished nothing'.

Trumped up allegations in Sweden, because you know there are no charges against Assange I'm sure, are an attempt to try to silence him. Outside the US, which depends on propaganda for 'news' the world knows the facts.

Manning will not be forgotten, anymore than Ellsberg will be forgotten. The 'foreign policies' of the US during this period have been revealed to the world, and it is not a proud moment. That some Americans prefer to remain blind to the revelations, does not diminish them.

To boast about 'no one being held responsible' is exactly the problem the world knows and the problem that has contributed to a loss of moral authority for the US. As China and other countries have pointed out each time the US waves a finger at any other country regarding human rights violations. No one is listening to a country that has done nothing to hold its own human rights abusers accountable.

Those responsible for this loss of power should have been prosecuted, and it's possible they will be in the future when all of them are out of power,(Cheney certainly fears that), as has happened in other countries, even though it often takes decades. But if the US is to ever again gain the respect of the world, a return to law and order will be necessary.

I would not be boasting about the fact that war criminals and economic criminals are not held accountable in his country. That is precisely what is so wrong and what has weakened this country and anyone who truly cares about it, will continue to work to reestablish the rule of law. As of now, the US government is regarded by many around the world, as a rogue state and a threat to world peace.

Hopefully one day we will elect a government that can restore our position in the world as a nation that can be trusted and respected.

[hack89]

201. Keep believing that if it makes you feel better

and don't start wondering why there is no ground swell of outrage over Manning's treatment. He is already a footnote in history.

[sabrina 1]

203. There is a worldwide groundswell of outrage over Manning's treatment.

It is because of that, as pointed out by P.J. Crowley after which he 'resigned', that the abuse of Manning finally stopped. You assume that your opinion represents the majority of opinion around the world. It does not.

Your hopes are simply that, YOURS. It is not about Manning, it is about this country.

[hack89]

205. You say that but I don't see it

apart from fringe groups and web news sites it appears to be a invisible movement.

Not in the national news, no prominent politicians making it an issue, certainly not an issue in my state. It is not an issue that has caught the public's attention.

He is nothing to most Americans - as it should be. He will not be remembered in the history books.

[sabrina 1]

212. P.J. Crowley is not a 'fringe group'.

His interference in the case reflected the huge interest and support for Manning, and as he said, the treatment of Manning by the US military, was 'counter-productive'. It stopped after he made those statements at a press conference where Manning's treatment was constantly being raised. Crowley 'sees it' even if you do not. Which is why he finally spoke out.

Most Americans who rely on the MSM are ignorant of the news because that is how their government wants it. So, saying 'most Americans don't know something' is kind of redundant. The rest of the world is far more informed and younger Americans are now also, as they do not rely on the old, propaganda machine we call 'the MSM'.

Manning will NEVER be reported on positively in the US MSM. Just as any soviet dissident was not reported on positively in the Soviet Union. Can't imagine why you are relying on the Corporate media anymore for any kind of factual reporting.

He is already in the history books, what he revealed has had more of an impact on the world and on governments around the world, in a positive way, than almost any other single event over the past number of years.

[hack89]

219. And how many months ago was that?

Once Manning was moved to Leavenworth and his treatment improved he has not been a blip on the public's conscience. He will be tied, convicted, and go to jail with little or no public outcry.

[sabrina 1]

223. He may not have been a blip on your conscience, but he most certainly has been

more than that, on the conscience's of millions of people whose lives were affected, positively for the most part, by his courageous actions. And the topic of conversation among people everywhere. Not on the MSM of course, but that is to be expected and the reason why people look elsewhere for news.

No one, including him, expects he will walk away. As I said, he understood the consequences and that is what makes a hero. Someone willing to risk their lives and/or freedom for the greater good. Since that has been accomplished, I'm sure he feels it was worth it. And no, he will not be forgotten, he will be a constant reminder of all that is wrong with US foreign policy and will always be respected and remembered for his courage.

[hack89]

225. Still don't see it

perhaps I don't read the same obscure internet news sites that you do. All I know is that he is not part of the national discourse - political or social. He is certainly not a topic of discussion.

[sabrina 1]

226. You mean like the BBC, The Guardian

Asia Times, Al Jazeera, The Independent, (Irish and English) the NY Times, so many 'obscure sites' I don't even have to work that hard to find them. Maybe you don't read any of the major World news media, which would explain your lack of knowledge of the subject. This case is and has been of huge interest around the world. Mainly because of how Manning affected the lives of people in almost every country in the world, for the better.

Here we do not get news which is why Americans generally are not as informed as the people of other nations. But thankfully America's younger generation no longer relies on the MSM, which is fast losing credibility everywhere, a fact acknowledged by Hillary Clinton eg, having basically grown up in an era where they have access to other major news media around the world. People are no longer so easily blinded by propaganda, they have the resources to check and double check what they are being told.

[hack89]

229. Got it - Americans are stupid.

either that or they don't think Manning is worth a bucket of warm spit. I vote for the later.

[msanthrope]

195. Wikileaks donated a paltry 15k, while it raked in millions, according to WAU Holland.

As for a defense, I can tell you that it is better for Manning to claim release to a 'journalist' than to claim he didn't know who he was releasing it to.


As for calling Assange as a witness, why would the defense do that at the Article 32, except to dispute the authenticity of the chats?

[sabrina 1]

202. Manning never claimed he did not know to whom he was releasing the

information. Not sure where you go that. As for the money donated to Manning, you can blame the Corps who blocked Wikileaks' finances for that.

[msanthrope]

221. I blame Wikileaks, for taking in millions, but only donating 15k to Manning.

No corporation blocked them from donating to Bradley Manning--


WikiLeaks Donations Topped $1.9 Million in 2010
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/wau-holland-report/

Assange also got a 1.5 million book deal.

FYI--with your bank routing number, or a check, you can still donate to Wikileaks.

[sabrina 1]

222. You are free to blame whoever you want. Wikileaks has a staff of 2,000

or more people. A million is nowhere near enough to handle their expenses and since their finances were illegally blocked by this government, that is who I and millions of others around the world, blame.

Shameful that any Democratic Government would attempt to silence a respected and prize-winning News Organization and deprive them of their sources of income, because they fear freedom of the press.

Sorry, but that argument was made and rejected by a majority of the world's population.

[msanthrope]

224. Kindly cite the paid staff of Wikileaks figure? Because the WAU Holland Report

simply does not bear that out.

Julian Assange does not have 2,000 employees.

[sabrina 1]

51. Manning did know what he was releasing.

And he talked about it on the chat logs, so I'm not sure where people are getting this idea, unless they have not read his own words.

[hack89]

53. So he read everyone and understood the contents? Don't think so. nt

[sabrina 1]

64. He was analyst, he did read what he released.

It is obvious from his own words that he knew what he was releasing, both the war logs and the cables. And he, in his words, explained at the time, why he felt that information was important for the public to have access to.

Since those words were spoken before the material went public, I think he knew what he was talking about. He was extremely intelligent, he was trained as an analyst, and in fact had uses his skills to expose actual enemies who might have harmed the troops himself. So yes, he knew what he was releasing.

[hack89]

71. He stole 260,000 messages - none of which had anything to do with his job as a low level analyst.

he did not read all of them.

[cstanleytech]

113. I am confused, I thought this was a simple case of

he is innocent because he did not release classified information or he is guilty because he did release classified information?
So if he is guilty why can he just plead guilty but with mitigating circumstances and beg for leniency at sentencing?

[EFerrari]

86. It's to paint him as reckless, as if concealing State Department cables

that show them pushing Monsanto all over the world keeps us safe.

It's comical, when you get right down to it.

[seabeyond]

40. he stole over 250k cables to see if he could find a gotcha. not the same. at all. or kinda. nt

[sabrina 1]

54. Actually, that is not what happened.

He did not go on a hunt to find a 'gotcha'. He was shocked by what he came across in the course of his job, which he was very good at. He saw evidence of war crimes. He knew as we all did, that war crimes were being committed in Iraq, but he saw the evidence.

If you saw someone committing a crime, what would you do?

[seabeyond]

78. actually, ya, it is exactly what happened. downloaded a mess of stuff

hoping to have someone else find shit without concern what damage it might cause.

[EFerrari]

88. Can you explain how you are able to read Brad Manning's mind long distance

and in contradiction to his own testimony? Thank you.

[seabeyond]

94. what is confusing. 250k cable, clueless what is in them. gave to someone else

Really, where is the room to argue that

[Luminous Animal]

97. There's lots of room to argue...

250 cables. Not clueless to their contents and stated so in the chat logs, and in a desire to make public much of what he found disturbing, passed them on to a news organization.

[seabeyond]

109. he stold 250k cables. fact. he gave them to someone to find a gotcha. fact.

There's lots of room to argue...

not really

[Luminous Animal]

117. He clearly states in the chat logs why he decided to blow the whistle & compile

and release the cables. He said nothing, zero, nada, about seeking a gotcha. So no, your claims about him are based in fantasy not fact.

[SlimJimmy]

187. Not 250, 250 thousand cables. Trust me, he did not read each of them before he released

them.

[seabeyond]

191. of course he didnt. but we are going to pretend he read them all, and felt putin as alpha male so

important, it had to be released to the world. wht a hero is made of.

[SlimJimmy]

218. I'm not going to pretend that he vetted 250k in material. Others can make that argument if they

want to, but it doesn't fly.

[Luminous Animal]

199. Sorry, I left off the "K". I know it is 250,000 and I believe that he read enough

of them to justify his actions.

[SlimJimmy]

207. Unless he vetted them all before he released them, he didn't exercise due dilligence.

As an intelligence analyst, he knew better. As a military member with a security clearance, he violated the law when he did so.

[Luminous Animal]

209. Yes. He did violate the law. I don't think anyone is denying that.

And vetting them would be doing the exact opposite of what he wanted to do. He wanted a full airing of the materials... who is he to decide which ones are worthy for the world to see?

[SlimJimmy]

217. That's not the point. By not vetting the material, he didn't know for certain what he was releasing

That alone is inexcusable.

[sabrina 1]

138. If you don't take the trouble to find out the facts, true, then there would be no point in arguing.

But many people around the world HAVE taken that trouble, which is why they know that he did know what he was handing over. And that he gave it a lot of thought before making the decision he eventually made. It was not a thoughtless act as anyone who has read his own words, knows.

[seabeyond]

141. he did not know that was in over 250K cables. that is bullshit. now, regardless of the rest you

add to your post is irrelevant. because now you step into what i am not addressing nor care about.

he. did. not. KNOW. what was in 250K cables. and he handed them all over to someone else after stealing them.

criminal.

[sabrina 1]

157. Yes, he did and he spoke about what was in them on the chat logs. So, I'm afraid you are wrong.

The evidence shows he knew. He did not need to read every page, every cable, to 'know what was in them', to be able to decide what they demonstrated about US foreign policy. Neither did I or anyone who has read through those they were interested in. I, eg, have read the cables from at least a dozen or more countries and I have far less time to do this than Manning had, and I agree with his assessment of them, stated before they became public.

They 'showed how the first world oppresses the third world' and he hoped by releasing them that policies would change. And they have. Tunisia and Egypt eg, were very much influenced by what was revealed in those cables. They did exactly what he had hoped for, exposed the corruption of those regimes, and contributed to their downfall.

Nigeria cables, eg, showed the extent of the corruption in their government. Indian Cables revealed bribery by the West to influence a special election crucial to the Government and those revelations, exposing the influence of DC on Indian elections, nearly collapsed that government, and basically saved their democracy of which they claim to be so proud.

And that is just a fraction of what was in them, which he knew, and was the reason why he chose to release them.

[seabeyond]

158. so, he did not know what was in them, general feel and expressed what he felt would be found. right

as i said, he did not know what was in them. downloaded over 250k cables for a gotcha moment.

you word it to make it something it isnt, and that doesnt fly.

[sabrina 1]

161. Did you read my post? Yes, he did know what was in them. He said so and described accurately

was in them. There was no 'gotcha' whatsoever about what he did. And I have not seen even people who do not agree with what he did say such a thing. He was a soldier who was happy in his job. His job was to analyze data to find out who the 'bad guys' were. A job he did very well, using his expert knowledge of computer coding to expose terrorists who were planning to kill US troops. He received an award for his work on this.

He was not looking for crimes committed by his own side. But he found crimes. One of them he was asked to participate in. He reported what he knew, he was ignored. He than realized that the 'news' was lying about what was going in Iraq, because HE was reading the actual evidence that they were lying.

Have you read anything about this case at all? If so, I cannot imagine where you are getting this 'gotcha' idea from. Nothing could be further from the truth and even the prosecution will not be able to make that charge BECAUSE there is so much evidence to the contrary.

[seabeyond]

165. yes i have. i have read the facts. not story selling to create him as a hero. nt

[sabrina 1]

172. Then can you present the facts, because what you have presented so far is so removed from the

facts it is not recognizable as even referring the Bradley Manning case.

Unless you're playing 'devil's advocate' or something??

I have presented facts over and over again, yet you have not once referred to them, you have not contradicted them, or confirmed them eg. Your statements so far have not referred to the facts at all. There is no story telling involved in the MAN'S OWN WORDS. Words spoken before he ever thought he would be in this situation. Are you saying he did not say what he said? That the evidence I have related does not exist? Because if so, you are just plain wrong.

I can't follow you at all.

[seabeyond]

177. the only fact i have supplied is he did not KNOW what was in EVERY ONE of those 250k cables.

you want to pretend he did. it is not true.

[sabrina 1]

180. And that is not a fact. Please provide something to back it up. You have repeated it

over and over again, and I have provided you over and over again with the information that he did know what was in the material he released. It is not even in question.

Where did you get the information that he did not know?

[seabeyond]

190. ok, so manning knew how important and criminal it was telling world putin an alpha male

go manning.

[sabrina 1]

200. And that answers the question as to whether or not you actually

have read the evidence of his knowledge of what he was leaking. Should have said this in the beginning and saved a lot of time. I hope some day you will take the time to read at least some of the cables.

They are an important, historical snapshot of US foreign policies during this period in history and the public has the right to know what their government is doing in their name. This has not been a period to be proud of, and the cables help to put so much in perspective and clarify some of what we already knew, and the extent of US interference around the world.

Hopefully if we ever get a government that restores the country to what it was envisioned to be, and what we still pretend to be, these cables will serve as evidence of where the country went off track and in some cases answer the questions so many Americans have asked 'why do they hate us' depending on which ones you choose to study.

Thank you Bradley Manning for making them available.

[seabeyond]

204. that is your spin sabrina. always the spin..... you know he didnt read over 250k cables

spin away.

facts be damn. make a good story to show his heroism. i won't buy

[sabrina 1]

210. There is no spin in my comments.

Last edited Tue Dec 27, 2011, 07:15 PM - Edit history (1)

I stated facts from the beginning. I responded to your claim that he 'knew nothing' about what was in the documents he released but handed them over to someone else without having a clue. That simply was not true.

Then you stated he was playing 'gotcha' by handing them over, that is spin, as nothing could be further from the truth.

I pointed out that how wrong you were, and added that he did not need to read every single cable to conclude what he concluded as to what they revealed. Otoh,, he himself seems to say he did read most of them which he says, is hard to do without 'becoming desensitized'.

You then switched to 'he didn't read all of the cables'.


Your statements were simply wrong. Correcting statements that are not factual is not 'spin'. I am glad you have backed off the statements that he was unaware of what was in them and was playing some kind of 'gotcha' game, because neither of those statements were true.

Here's a little of what he said about his knowledge of what was in the cables:

(1:00:57 PM) bradass87: theres so much… it affects everybody on earth… everywhere there’s a US post… there’s a diplomatic scandal that will be revealed… Iceland, the Vatican, Spain, Brazil, Madascar, if its a country, and its recognized by the US as a country, its got dirt on it

........

(1:10:38 PM) bradass87: its open diplomacy… world-wide anarchy in CSV format… its Climategate with a global scope, and breathtaking depth… its beautiful, and horrifying…

That was in May 2010. Since then the cables have been made available, and there is no question that he knew what was in them and made his decision based on that knowledge and did accomplish some of the good he had hoped for by releasing them.

Unless anyone thinks toppling dictators is not a good thing. And that is why he is regarded as a hero by many people. Because of his motives, and the risk he knew he was taking in order to try to stop the corruption and change the world for the better. In his own words, not the spin the media is disseminating and those who want to believe it.

[hfojvt]

184. bribery by the west?

Not according to this article. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8386095/WikiLeaks-Indian-politicians-bought-votes-with-cash-tucked-inside-newspapers.html

[Eliminator]

119. And what damage has it caused thus far?

Other than exposing the criminal actions of governments all across the world?

Hero. Period.

[seabeyond]

121. he stole... criminal act. period.

[Eliminator]

147. And they murdered over 4000 American soldiers

And hundreds of thousands more civilians in an illegal war. And they stole billions of dollars.

But Bradley Manning sits in a prison cell, without trial or due process, for what looks like an infinite period of time if they have their way. While his leaks have done no damage whatsoever.

Sometimes one needs to see the forest for the trees. It's troubling to see so many in this thread cannot.

[seabeyond]

149. one has nothing to do with the other. it is not agreeing he is a hero,

But stating he is a criminal. Again, nothing to do with forests and trees, regardless how you choose to create it.

[sabrina 1]

125. No point arguing any further as you have not read

what he himself had to say about it. I hope the jury and/or judge who gets to decide this case does a bit more research on it.

[surfdog]

4. Not my hero

You're implying that Manning knew what material he was releasing and this just is not accurate , he did not review the material.

Fact is he really didn't know what he stole and released to the public

[tammywammy]

5. +1 n/t

[SidDithers]

11. +1...

it was a file dump, not a whistleblower release.

Sid

[SlimJimmy]

208. Yes, a file dump, pure and simple. Saying anything else is being disingenuous to the extreme.

[pintobean]

22. +1 ....

and even if he did know, we can't allow individuals like him to determine what should, or shouldn't, be classified.

I wonder how many people, who consider him a hero, also see the 'climategate' 'leaker' as a hero.

[Better Believe It]

66. Government officials will decide what they will permit the public to know under the new transparency

And isn't that a wonderful system.

Nixon tried to plug the leaks and make an example of Ellsberg.

Now President Obama is repeating that process with Manning.

[sabrina 1]

69. +1

[jefferson_dem]

28. +1

Any effort to compare toolbox Manning to Ellsberg (even by Ellsberg himself) is a joke, and should be pointed out as such.

[EFerrari]

33. Manning didn't release anything to the public. He gave it to Wikileaks. nt

[hack89]

37. And just what did he think Wikileaks was going to do with it? Besides making it public that is?

splitting hairs is an art form on DU!

[EFerrari]

82. Not at all. Wikileaks filters the information through reputable media

organizations and after that process, information is made public.

Just as when the Obama administration leaks information to the NYTs, the WaHo and to CNN.

Is that clearer now?

[hack89]

105. And yet all that information was made public

and we have to trust Wikileaks that they have the knowledge and expertise to get it right.

I think the government is doing the right thing with Manning - make him the example of what happens when you break the law. Make sure everyone understands that sending secrets to Wikileaks does not meet the requirements of US whistleblower laws. All Manning had to do was comply with the Military Whistleblower Protection Act and he would not be in the mess he is in.

[EFerrari]

173. Wikileaks record is better than the government's. Do you trust the government?

And Wikieaks works with all the same people the government does, NYTs, the WaHo, The Guardian, McClatchy. They don't operate in a vacuum.

And, Manning aside, Obama has prosecuted more whistle blowers than any other president. So, what you are suggesting was not an avenue open to Bradley Manning.

[hack89]

188. Perhaps - in any case Manning will be in jail for a long time and that is a good thing. nt

[tammywammy]

38. Wikileaks is public

Manning put classified information in an unclassified setting. Giving the documents to Wikileaks is publicly releasing classified information.

[EFerrari]

176. The massive data dump the corporate media talked about for months

didn't happen. The material was carefully filtered through the most respected news organizations on the planet in exactly the same manner that the Obama administration leaks are processed.

[tammywammy]

185. That doesn't change what I wrote.

Wikileaks is public. Manning released classified information, even he doesn't deny he released classified information. By handing over the classified documents to Wikileaks he was passing them into an unclassified arena.

[polmaven]

47. Just what do you think the letters l.e.a.k.s.

at the end of that name stand for?

[Number23]

124. Ha!

Like someone already said, some here are absolute MASTERS (or so they have convinced themselves) of splitting hairs and parsing.

[polmaven]

155. So you don't think l.e.a.k.s.

means exactly as it reads......wikileaks? That is not "splitting hairs" nor is it "parsing". It is exactly what iot is meant to be.

[Number23]

163. I am agreeing with you

Please re-read what I wrote.

And when I said that in the minds of some here, they are masters of splitting hairs and parsing I wasn't referring to you.

[polmaven]

211. My apologies...

I apparently misunderstood your post.

[DevonRex]

63. Public means anyone without proper clearance and need to know. Nt

[Better Believe It]

68. We need to know the truth and the people should be cleared to know the truth.

"Proper clearance" according to whom?

[DevonRex]

70. Basically you're saying there should be no intelligence agencies

and no clandestine ops. No MI.

And you're saying Cheney was right to out Valerie Plame Wilson, put her life and those of her resources in danger.

[Better Believe It]

99. "Intelligence agencies"? Do you include government spy agencies that violate our civil liberties?

Intelligence my ass. I suppose one could ignore the war on our Constitution, civil and democratic rights conducted with Presidential approval by the FBI, CIA, Department of Fatherland Security and all of the military spy agencies.

But Manning and Ellsberg couldn't and wouldn't bow down and submit to those government agencies and officials who had no respect for our civil liberties and rights. They demonstrated courage and honor in the face of government threats and suppression.

And you're saying Cheney/Bush and Obama are right to send our soldiers off to wars that are based on a mountain of lies spread by "intelligence agencies" and put their lives in very real danger? 4,500 GI's have lost their lives in vain and you're worried about Valerie Plame Wilson! Did she demonstrate the courage of Ellsberg or Manning to speak and act against wars while she was still on the government payroll in order to help stop the needless death of those U.S. soldiers?

And do you also believe that any soldier who exposes such government war lies and defends our Constitution from those who are subverting it should serve life in prison?

[EFerrari]

81. If you are Mueller, it does.

The fact is, Manning sent the information to a known clearinghouse with a global record of responsible behavior.

Now, if Mr. Mueller had spent less time investigating peace grannies and pot clubs and more time investigating government corruption, at that point you'd have an argument that Wikileaks isn't a benefit to our society.

But while Mr. Mueller et all allow torturers to go about their book tours and murderers to remain in our armed services, we need all the help from Wikileaks and leakers such as Bradley Manning that we can get.

[hack89]

36. +1 nt

[WillyT]

6. He's A Hero Of Mine... And Michael Moore...

A Man in Tunisia, a Movement on Wall Street, and the Soldier Who Ignited the Fuse
Michael Morre - HuffPo
Posted: 12/18/11 11:28 AM ET

<snip>

One year ago today (December 17th), Mohamed Bouazizi, a man who had a simple produce stand in Tunisia, set himself on fire to protest his government's repression. His singular sacrifice ignited a revolution that toppled Tunisia's dictator and launched revolts in regimes across the Middle East.

Three months ago today, Occupy Wall Street began with a takeover of New York's Zuccotti Park. This movement against the greed of corporate America and its banks -- and the money that now controls most of our democratic institutions -- has quickly spread to hundreds of towns and cities across America. The majority of Americans now agree that a nation where 400 billionaires have more wealth than 160 million Americans combined is not the country they want America to be. The 99% are rising up against the 1% -- and now there is no turning back.

Twenty-four years ago today, U.S. Army Spc. Bradley Manning was born. He has now spent 570 days in a military prison without a trial -- simply because he allegedly blew the whistle on the illegal and immoral war in Iraq. He exposed what the Pentagon and the Bush administration did in creating this evil and he did so by allegedly leaking documents and footage to WikiLeaks. Many of these documents dealt not only with Iraq but with how we prop up dictators around the world and how our corporations exploit the poor on this planet. (There were even cables with crazy stuff on them, like one detailing Bush's State Department trying to stop a government minister in another country from holding a screening of Fahrenheit 9/11.)

The WikiLeaks trove was a fascinating look into how the United States conducts its business -- and clearly those who don't want the world to know how we do things in places like, say, Tunisia, were not happy with Bradley Manning.

<snip>

More Moore: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/bradley-manning-occupy-wall-street_b_1156128.html

[GliderGuider]

19. Same here, for both men.

Both information and knowledge must be available to adults in a free society, in order for it to remain free. If important information and knowledge are being withheld by those on power, people with access have the right and responsibility to correct that situation.

[bahrbearian]

42. +1 And a hero for Truth.

[xchrom]

8. Indeed he is a hero. Nt

[Ikonoklast]

139. Do the 'heroes' in your world punch women in the face?

And wrestle them to the ground?

Manning is an immature fuck-up who will get exactly what he deserves.

[Electric Monk]

9. If I call him a hero, does that mean I can be locked up too for 'supporting terrorism'?

I agreee with Ray McGovern and Daniel Ellsberg on this. Bush and Cheney belong in jail, not Manning.

[Ichingcarpenter]

16. totally agree

but not to the sunshine patriots
America, once admired for its freedom and democratic ideals, suddenly finds itself in a secret war, with secret courts, sealed warrants and secret searches. Like deer caught in the headlights, we are too paralyzed by fear and denial to take proper evasive actions. Waving flags and promoting false patriotism, this new and highly secretive oligarchy is shamelessly using our fear of terrorism to suspend our rights and the media's access to the truth. Even the Freedom of Information Act is under attack

Manning let some of the light in.

[hack89]

10. Not to me - he deserves any punishment he receives. nt

[William769]

12. Indeed he is a hero. Nt

[surfdog]

15. To say he isn't a traitor is absurd

It's clear as Day he betrayed his oath to the military

let's be honest now

Call him a hero all day long if you want... but it's a fact he betrayed our nation

[sabrina 1]

56. He took an oath, to defend and protect the Constitution.

Once he saw evidence of crimes and violations of that oath, what was his duty at that point?

[girl gone mad]

85. He certainly did not betray me.

Who is it that he betrayed? War criminals? Sick, dirty MIC profiteers?

Those are the traitors who Manning exposed. Manning is a hero who did the right thing in the true spirit of our founding fathers.

[Better Believe It]

102. And will you please post the oath to the military commanders that Manning took?

I thought everyone in the military was required to take an oath to defend the Constitution from all subverting it, foreign and domestic.

I'm honestly not aware of this oath to their officers and military command that GI's are required to take.

Please post it.

Thanks

[MichaelMcGuire]

17. K&R

[cowcommander]

18. If you believe that it's ok to lie to people to avoid unrest, he's a traitor

[dailey010]

21. He broke the law

Plain and simple he broke the law, and betrayed his fellow servicemembers. I don't think he released the classified information for any noble cause. Frankly, I think he was just throwing a childish fit.

[noamnety]

25. Whatever his motivation was

if it ultimately contributed to saving lives, I'm glad he did it.

[sabrina 1]

130. The Founding Fathers broke the law. Should they be called traitors?

[AntiFascist]

26. The criminal acts of this government betray the people our nation...

unfortunately most people aren't concerned so they deserve the government that they get. Sad to see it go down under authoritarianism.

[malthaussen]

29. Regardless of intent or sexual orientation

... neither of which are germane, IMO, the question to be answered is: did he, or did he not, reveal information that could have/did lead to casualties among the people on his own side? To say "he didn't know what was in the files" just tells me that he was irresponsible in the extreme -- possibly criminally irresponsible. Treason? Is it treason to get your own people shot? If it isn't, what is? If no information of operational value was revealed, then I think he did a good thing. But if information of operational value was revealed, then his action was unwise, to say the least.

-- Mal

[dailey010]

34. Agreed

[treestar]

120. Some posters seem to have the impression that

he revealed the very evidence that could convict Bush and Cheney themselves.

I agree with your post - that's what people ought to be considering. There seems to be a section cheering him on just because he might have harmed Americans in war.

[HelenWheels]

30. Manning is a hero to me.

Just as is Daniel Ellsberg.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. I don't think what he did was particularly heroic, but...

I think it's ridiculous that he's probably going to be sent to prison for a very long time, while Scooter Libby, Dick Armitage, and everyone else involved in the Valerie Plame case never saw the inside of a jail cell for a second. It's pretty evident that leaking classified information is only a crime if the peons do it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Sadly, whistleblowing on murderers is considered a crime by this administration.

[Pachamama]

41. I stopped having Heroes a long time ago....but until Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Woo and

....others are prosecuted for their many crimes which led to many deaths, then I am going to have a hard time thinking of Manning as a criminal that deserves punishment by the very same government that has perpetrated the various crimes and let these other criminals run Scott-free. How many people have died because of the illegal wars we started? How many people have died or been tortured because of the various dictatorships we have propped up? How many people died when Valerie Plame was outed?

All I can say is the hypocrisy in which our system operates and by which it chooses whom to punish is tremendous. I wont call Bradley Manning a hero, but I cant call him a criminal for exposing the crimes and criminals that have led to many deaths. And who knows, ultimately, Bradley Mannings actions by leaking the info he did may ultimately have saved more lives than would have been lost if he hadnt.

[itsrobert]

43. Unrec, why is this filfth on the Greatest Page?

Where is the unrec button?

The guy is not a hero.

[Pachamama]

49. I believe its on the Greatest Page because this is "The Democratic" Underground...

[itsrobert]

58. No, because some cliche group got it there

thanks

[Electric Monk]

73. Cliche?

Perhaps the word you're looking for is clique?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

227. I think he's still looking for an apostrophe for the contraction in his screen name

This clique/cliche business can be addressed later.

[Better Believe It]

72. The post was taken off the Greatest Page due to your protest I assume.

It has 35 recommends but that doesn't count if someone objects.

That seems to be the way things are working out or it just a very strange computer glitch!

[itsrobert]

74. I did not alert on it

So, I don't know anything about that. Check your "Greatest Page" forum settings.

[SidDithers]

67. Agreed...nt

Sid

[DevonRex]

44. He's a traitor. He didn't know or care what he released.

He sounds like a spoiled child who had a temper tantrum and did the first bad thing he could think of to get attention. Unfortunately for him, he did know he was breaking the law and what the punishment could be for it.

[sabrina 1]

57. He did know what he released, which is why he released it.

What he saw violated the Constitution and his oath was to defend and protect the Constitution.

I guess that oath is just words now. And yes he knew there were laws against what he did. He reported a crime he was asked to involve himself in. Nothing was done about it. If someone ordered you to commit a crime, what would you do?

[DevonRex]

65. LOL. It was a massive file dump.

[AtomicKitten]

76. It was a recklessly indiscriminate massive file dump.

[sabrina 1]

77. It was a massive amount of files, yes.

Wikileaks is an award-winning news organization and as a whistle-blower, he chose to use them to release the documents. They had an excellent reputation at the time for exposing criminal activity in governments around the world. And for protecting their sources.

Wikileaks then worked with several major news organizations, realizing there was too much to handle for their small staff. Those major News Orgs working in collaboration with Wikileaks, released, after editing for any harmful material, the material in a series of reports that went on for weeks.

Joe Lieberman wants to criminalize news reporting, as does Palin and a few other insane Republicans, but the 1st Amendment protects all those news organizations which, after receiving the material, did their duty and shared the information with the public.

[girl gone mad]

87. So was the Pentagon Papers.

Some people around here sure have short memories! ^^

[dana_b]

112. that oath is just words

and the Constitution is just paper.

Manning did what he thought was right and realized that what our government was doing is/was wrong. That took courage.

[MineralMan]

45. The definition of "hero"

has been seriously diminished. While some may applaud Manning for releasing all that information, there is no definition of "hero" that I know of that includes him. If he is found guilty of improperly distributing classified material, he will be penalized for violating the UCMJ. He knew the risks of doing that. Anyone who handles classified information in the military has been briefed on the penalties and has signed a document acknowledging that briefing.

Why would we expect any other outcome if he is convicted?

[sabrina 1]

59. If there were no consequences for doing what was right, he would not be hero.

If the FFs had been captured, they would have been executed for treason. They too knew they were violating the law.

Throughout history, men and women have been convicted of crimes and imprisoned, for doing what is right. The fact they were doesn't in any way diminish their status as heroes.

Manning is a hero to anyone who has researched this case and who knows why he did what he did.

[girl gone mad]

89. You sure think highly of yourself.

"there is no definition of "hero" that I know of that includes him. "

Newsflash "MineralMan": You are not the final arbiter of national heroism.

[MineralMan]

91. I'm not sure how you get there from what I said.

What I said was my opinion, of course, and is based on the standard definitions of the word. Do I think highly of myself? I don't know, really. I think I make sense most of the time, if that's what you're asking, but what I write is just my opinion. Thanks for caring.

[girl gone mad]

92. "there is no definition of "hero" that I know of that includes him"

Then educate yourself, "MineralMan".

"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." -- Patrick Henry

"The foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; ...the propitious smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself has ordained..." -- George Washington

[MineralMan]

93. I'm familiar with all of those quotations.

None include the word "hero." None are definitions of that word. You are not addressing my point at all.

[girl gone mad]

95. My definition of a national hero is..

someone who puts his freedom at risk to uphold the ideals that our country was founded on and thrived under.

Clearly I did address your ignorant point.

[MineralMan]

96. My definition of a hero differs from yours.

There's no need to attempt to insult me. I don't mind if you disagree with me, and wouldn't insult you as you did me.

I'm far from ignorant of history and language. We disagree on some points. Your quotations said nothing about the word "hero," which was the subject of my earlier post.

[Whisp]

46. you may like a different brand of hero than mine.

imagine more yahoos like Manning decided that secret documents shouldn't be secret at all.

stupidity at it's height - I certainly don't trust and believe any government all the time, but yes, Virginia, there Really are Bad GUys out there and the Mannings are helping them. What if some info was released that caused an attack on an American city? Would you bow and scrape at Mannings feet then? I doubt that, even from you.

He sounds like an asshole extreme to me, not some hero. lOrdy, how that word gets abused

[Pachamama]

48. Extreme A-holes like Scooter Libby & Dick Cheney?

[Whisp]

80. lots of them out there, isn't there?

just because dick is a dick, does that mean Manning should be an irresponsible one?

[sabrina 1]

60. If you are ordered to involve yourself in the commission of a crime that violated

your oath to defend and protect the Constitution and you reported the crime but were ignored, what would you do?

[Whisp]

79. I understand that Manning didn't even know what he was releasing.

so how was he to judge, and why should he be appointed a judge?

[girl gone mad]

90. How is that any different than what Ellsberg did?

Both men are heroes.

[Whisp]

100. if there were 63 more Mannings, and

tomorrow they were all to steal top secret data and make it public.

would they be all heroes as well?

Maybe top secret info on infiltrating power grids, or the itinerary for the Vice President will be for all of next week? Or what if this info included passwords to banking systems and their clients. How about medical records of 3,000,000 random people?

would we have 63 more heroes?

[Luminous Animal]

103. What a muddle your post is!

You seem to not know the difference between personal privacy and government secrecy! (Psst... one is a Constitutionally protected right, the other is not.)

[girl gone mad]

104. If these people took personal risks in order to leak evidence of war crimes..

yes, they would be heroes.

I bet you keep the duct tape and plastic sheets handy at all times. Maybe take a deep breath and relax. You don't have to choose fear.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

167. you seem to consider Manning a hero for releasing war crimes

so i only have a single question for you

Do you consider him a hero for releasing the ton of classified information that is NOT related to any crimes?

[Whisp]

192. but as the poster below said, what if the info isn't all about war crimes?

Do you really think these documents are separated out as such? 'Why, here's a stack of war crimes, file it under W. As for the rest of the masive tomes of info, Clerk Sarpinski I am ordering you to separate them, and contact legal if you are in doubt whether it's warcrime material, or not.

Another thing that may not be the exact result many here wish - what if there is some real and workable evidence that Cheney is the mass murdering lizard he is. wouldn't information that is illegally released hamper or hinder a case against him? what if names were released that may be willing to testify against the lizard, and Cheney with all his contacts in the Lizardworld now knows who those people are. You think they might me in a special danger because of the release?

[girl gone mad]

230. It is not now, and never has been, the job of a whistleblower..

to pick out only the relevant information in leaked documents and files.

Ellsberg leaked thousands of pages of information, only a handful of which were pertinent.

Why would any progressive defend the criminal prosecution of a whistleblower who exposed horrible war crimes?

[Whisp]

231. don't question my 'progressiveness' and I won't yours

Manning is no Ellsberg.

[sabrina 1]

144. Your understanding is incorrect, he not only knew what he was releasing,

he spoke about it and it is clear that he knew from his conversation with Lamo. He is extremely intelligent. And it really doesn't take reading every single document. I, eg, have not read all of the cables, as it would be impossible to do AND have a life. But I have read those that were of interest to me, eg, the Nigerian, Indian, Tunisian and Egyptian, Libyan, and whenever I was interested in a partifcular country, I read the cables that had to do with that country. It really isn't that difficult, and you don't have to read each country's to see a pattern emerging.

The Iraq/Afghanistan War logs can be read by category also and again, it is not necessary to read all of them, just look for what is of interest. And I do not have one fraction of the time Manning had to read them.

[Smarmie Doofus]

61. Hero. Gimme a *hard* one, whydonchya. K and R

[Vanje]

75. Kick! Rec! Manning is a hero.

[hack89]

106. Why didn't he simply comply with the Military Whistleblower Protection Act?

He could have notified any member of Congress - is that hard to think of some progressive congressmen that would have not covered it up?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Whistleblower_Protection_

[cstanleytech]

114. Maybe he felt he couldnt trust the Inspector General? Other than that I am

not sure why he didnt use the legal protection that on the surface seems like it would have provided him with.

[hack89]

115. He could have gone to any member of Congress - he could have by-passed the military completely. nt

[Luminous Animal]

123. Yeah. That strategy worked out great for Ellsberg.

[cstanleytech]

126. Oh? What was the comparable law called back then seeing as the

Military Whistleblower Protection Act wasnt signed until 1988?

[hack89]

127. But Ellsberg tried first. Do you think Kucinich or Sanders would have turned Manning away?

Why didn't Manning?

[Better Believe It]

135. "He could have gone to any member of Congress" Sure. Anyone. Leiberman for example.

What members of Congress do you think were/are prepared to release all of those documents without worrying about being charged with treason?

List them.

Nah. I think the smartest policy would have been for Manning to send this documents to Wikileaks to ensure their publication.

I hope he did.

[hack89]

140. You think Kucinich or Sanders would have turned Manning away? They would cover up war crimes?

I thought the video was the issue - the one showing the war crime. Do you think Kucinich or Sanders would cover up war crimes?

[The Midway Rebel]

118. He is niether.

If he were simply a traitor or a hero he would not inspire such extreme views. He is a twenty-first century antihero. Your view of him is likely tied to your view of authority.

[sabrina 1]

134. Well, my view of him is tied to the Bush era war crimes. During that time many people wished

for a whistle-blower to expose them. Manning's revelations in the Iraq/Afghanistan war logs and the video, plus the cables, reveal quite a bit about the Bush 'war' years. It is too bad that more people did not step forward when they knew that administration was lying to the public. A few did, Kevin Benderman eg, and Joe Wilson. And the soldier who revealed the photos from Abu Ghraib. But not nearly enough.

I am puzzled by the sudden change of heart among some on the left regarding exposing that administration's crimes and lies.

[cstanleytech]

145. sabrina let me ask you something please?

Do you believe that it is ok to break the law if your intent is good even though you might have other means that are totally legal to achieve your goal?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

150. Rosa Parks, and many others, "broke the law" when other means were available.

At least theoretically the segregation laws of the time could have been repealed by electing other officials and waiting it out.

[sabrina 1]

151. No, I do not. The Bush administration tried to make that claim, that their intent was good so

violating all of our laws was okay according to them. Although they struggled to twist the language of our laws to adjust them to their crimes.

Manning saw evidence of those crimes and exposed it. Was he really breaking the law, or abiding by his oath?

[cstanleytech]

152. You will have to answer that for yourself sabrina as

I believe that the ends don't justify the means already.

[sabrina 1]

154. Well, breaking bad laws, such as Rosa Parks did (and I'm sure there were people who condemned

her too for choosing that course of action rather than some more 'legal' means) is sometimes necessary. The FFs eg, broke some serious laws too.

[cstanleytech]

159. Manning is no Rosa Parks though.

[Better Believe It]

162. He certainly isn't. The federal government is trying to put him in prison for life!

She spent a few days in jail and was correctly thought of as a hero for civil rights.

[Number23]

164. Just when I thought your comments saying the woman that Manning punched "deserved it"

was going to be the apex of narrow-minded stupidity on this issue.

She spent a few days in jail and was correctly thought of as a hero for civil rights.

Mindblowing. Abso-fucking-lutey MINDBLOWING.

[Number23]

166. It is times like this that this place becomes a caricature of itself

Rosa Parks broke laws that were unconstitutional and discriminatory based on the immoral, flawed and disgusting concept of white supremacy upon which this country was founded. What she did was an act of selfless bravery that impacted millions of Americans who were treated as little more than animals in the country of their birth.

Manning's actions were not the actions of someone fighting the good fight for the good of his community, for his brothers and sisters or for his children. There is not one shred of CREDIBLE proof that says he even knew what was in the data he sent to Wikileaks or that there was any moral reasoning or concern for the greater good behind his actions.

Putting Bradley Manning in the same SENTENCE as Rosa Parks only shows the depths of ignorance and stupidity that has encompassed some here.

[cstanleytech]

174. Hey, dont yell at me instead yell at the ones trying to claim he is like her.

[Number23]

206. I was AGREEING with you

Even reading just my first sentence should have made that apparent.

[cstanleytech]

213. Ah sorry, been sick since christmas eve and

was tired when I posted that, my apologies for misreading it.

[Number23]

214. No problem. Hope you're feeling better.

[cstanleytech]

215. Thank you and yes i am over most of the hacking up a lung part

now all thats left is my voice which makes me sound like a human frog mutant and coughing up a bit of phlegm.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

168. i have a rather simple view on the matter

He is a hero for releasing the info related to war crimes, however he is also a criminal for releasing the ton of classified info that was unrelated to any crimes

so if I had been on his jury I'd likely have argued for punishing him, but with the war crimes parts adding some mitigating factors

[sabrina 1]

171. That's a reasonable position to take.

I actually wondered why he released the cables, and was not even sure if he had as I could not see how they related to his goal of drawing attention to War Crimes.

But after I read the chat logs where he explains why he did it, I understood. It was, according to him, a matter of stopping the First World from exploiting the Third World which is what he took from reading the cables. And having read quite a few of them so far, I think that is a good analysis of what they reveal.

He hoped that by releasing them it would have an effect on people's opinions and even result in actions that would stop it. And that is exactly what happened, the cables influenced the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia eg, so his assessment was correct. Also in India the revelations of bribery in one of their special elections nearly collapsed their government. But it exposed the corruption and made it possible to deal with it. As one Indian member of Parliament said 'who is running this country, Washington DC'?

I found it very impressive that someone as young as he was, about 21 at the time, understood what those cables revealed about the US' and our Western allies' influence and interference in almost every single country in the world and how it results in supporting dictators and bribery and corruption.

But then he was an analyst so I guess that is how he approached those cables, analyzing them for their broader implications.

Being on a jury, however, requires people to judge whether a law was broken or not. So unless the Defense does a superb job of convincing the jury that those revelations were not criminal and should not have been classified and the people's right to know, trumps any laws the prosecution may use to convict him under, he probably will get jail time. Hopefully as you said, with mitigating circumstances considerations.

Thank you for your response

[cstanleytech]

179. The video of the helicopter attack? Well ok I suppose I could see mitigating circumstances

being pleaded for on that but claiming to release the cables to "protect the third world" and or about our alleged "interference"? Not so much. Why? Because while ethically questionable by our government its not a war crime so it wasnt relevant if his goal was to truly reveal "war crimes".

[sabrina 1]

181. Well, he didn't say his ONLY goal was to reveal war crimes.

He wanted to see justice for all people and the cables demonstrated to him that there was little justice anywhere and that what was in them affected everyone on the planet. He hoped by releasing them people would take action to start changing things. They did, so his analysis proved to be correct. It was, from reading his own words, a matter of conscience for him to the point, he said, he did not mind going to prison or even being executed for it. So he understood the risks.

We knew the Iraq War was a lie and we knew war crimes were being committed. I remember many times during the Bush admins. people wishing more Military personnel would take a stand and speak out about the crimes. A few did and they were viewed as heroes, at least on the left.

So I don't understand the attitude, especially on the left, towards Manning. All he did was what people were hoping someone would do. And while the revelations have accomplished some of what he hoped for, eg, people around the world know a lot more about their own governments now, still no war criminals have been prosecuted. But too is a revelation. It tells us that our government condones war crimes and will never prosecute them. I did not know that, I thought once we got rid of Bush et al, prosecutions would begin. But that was when I thought that we still operated under the rule of law. His leaks show us clearly, that is not the case.

[cstanleytech]

182. *shrug* Our justice system isnt perfect true

and people like Bush it seems do get away with stuff but does that really mean since Bush was allowed that we should let others get away with crimes? I dont think that is a path we should really go down.

[cherokeeprogressive]

146. Not my hero. Boy the "hero bar" is awful low if Manning's actions can be considered "heroic". n/t

[johnaries]

148. Actually, it's not so Black and White.

Depending, of course, whether he is tried in a Civilian or Military Court. Civilian standards are different. "Intent" must be proven. Personally, from what I have read about Manning personally I cannot believe that his "intent" was anything heroic. He hated his father. He was intent on destroying anything that his father held dear. His intentions were entirely selfish and the opposite of "heroic".

As a member of the Military, he joined the Military under duress and so maybe should not be held responsible for his military oaths. However, he did declare a military oath and he should be held accountable for upholding that oath.

What he revealed was NOT a "purposeful" action, but a revelation of errors. Errors happen. But, cover-ups can be more damaging that the errors themselves. I believe in transparency, but there is a right way and wrong way to do it.

Manning did it the wrong way and for the wrong reasons.

By his own admission, Bradley broke Military Law and is a Criminal. To turn this into an anti-Obama tirade is completely dishonest.

Although I believe in Transparency in most cases, although Transparency without Context can be deceitful on the face of it.

This is a serious, complicated issue and not so black-and-white. And, to repeat, to make this an anti-Obama issue is COMPLETELY DISHONEST. I will say again, COMPLETELY DISHONEST. So please don't go all "holier-than-thou" on this issue with me - I will have no respect for anyone who does.

[EX500rider]

170. "As a member of the Military, he joined the Military under duress"

Who forced him to join the military?

[msanthrope]

194. WHAT???? How was he forced to join the military???? Please explain this? nt

[BeHereNow]

169. Truth is the first casualty

&feature=share

BHN

[Electric Monk]

186. I hadn't seen that yet. Thanks for posting. nt

[Quartermass]

175. One person's villain is another Persons' hero.

Stalin and Hitler are still heroes to millions of people around the world.

[Zhade]

183. He saved many innocent lives.

His detractors? Not so much. They can fuck off.

[alarimer]

228. Whatever he is, he is not a traitor.

Breaking laws does not make one a traitor if it is for the greater good, which I believe this was.

Our government and military are two vast criminal enterprises. Yes I believe the military is and always has been a vast criminal enterprise and the people in it are not heroes but are like mafia thugs, serving at the bidding of the big wigs, who ultimately are doing the bidding of even bigger criminals (corporations and politicians).

But of course the larger criminal enterprise is our government. Obama has simply doubled down on the criminality. He has allowed Bush and Cheney to get away with literal murder so he could the same thing (such as assassinating American citizens- he should be impeached and jailed for that alone).

If Manning committed a crime, so be it, let the jury decide. But to call him a traitor is wrong. The real traitors are the politicians who have betrayed the ideals that this country was allegedly founded on and the military bigwigs who engage in that criminal activity at their behest.