General Discussion

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)

226. You mean like the BBC, The Guardian

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 05:50 PM

Dec 2011

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

231 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Bradley Manning: A Hero, Not a Traitor [View all] Better Believe It Dec 2011 OP

Not my definition of a hero dailey010 Dec 2011 #1

"If Manning had committed war crimes instead of exposing them, he would be a free man today." Better Believe It Dec 2011 #13

oh ffs....this is so much bull. His actions were wrong Sheepshank Dec 2011 #132

The right-wing homophobic lies and attacks on Bradley Manning Better Believe It Dec 2011 #20

Could You Please Explain... WillyT Dec 2011 #24

But how is releasing 260,000 diplomatic cables evidence of a war crime? cstanleytech Dec 2011 #107

The cables revealed sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #128

Seems to me he had other options such as contacting cstanleytech Dec 2011 #131

Yes, he could have done that. But he did report to his superior officer, the fact that detainees sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #136

"But do you think the material would ever have been made public had he done that?" cstanleytech Dec 2011 #143

I think we do know. The actions of this government when it comes to war crimes, tells us what sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #153

Why did he ignore the Military Whistleblower Protection Act? hack89 Dec 2011 #110

Maybe He Felt HE Would Be Ignored... And I Think He Was Pretty Much Right... WillyT Dec 2011 #216

The law says he can go to any member of Congress. hack89 Dec 2011 #220

What oath did you take when you enlisted? girl gone mad Dec 2011 #84

Manning admits he released classified information into the public domain. That is against the law. MjolnirTime Dec 2011 #2

He witnessed war crimes. He reported them. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #50

Except he ignored the legal way to report them. hack89 Dec 2011 #111

Don't bring facts into this. nt msanthrope Dec 2011 #193

no hero. criminal. nt seabeyond Dec 2011 #3

And do you also believe that Daniel Ellsberg was a traitor? How many years do you think Better Believe It Dec 2011 #7

Ellsberg knew exactly what he was releasing - Manning did not. hack89 Dec 2011 #14

So if Manning released the video of U.S. troops gunning down civilians what lives were endangered? Better Believe It Dec 2011 #23

It was the tens of thousand of others things he never bothered to screen that concern me. hack89 Dec 2011 #27

Such as ...... Better Believe It Dec 2011 #52

Are you saying he read everything he sent to Wikileaks? Really? nt hack89 Dec 2011 #55

Manning did not release those files to the public but to a clearinghouse. EFerrari Dec 2011 #32

So what? That is a meaningless distinction hack89 Dec 2011 #35

Let's hope that many others follow Manning and Ellsberg's example of courage, patriotism and heroism Better Believe It Dec 2011 #62

Nope, it's not meaningless in the least EFerrari Dec 2011 #83

Unfortunately for Manning, Wikileaks used him like a Kleenex hack89 Dec 2011 #98

So, did the NY Times use Ellsberg like a Kleenex? Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #101

He did prosecute the editors hack89 Dec 2011 #108

No. Nixon sought prior restraint but did not prosecute the Times for publishing. Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #116

OK. Manning is still no Ellsberg hack89 Dec 2011 #122

Lol, Manning is an editor and publisher of a multiple award-winning International News Organization. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #129

You mean Assange? Well then why is he running away? hack89 Dec 2011 #133

Running away? Is the US looking for him? sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #137

I am sure that make Manning feel much better. hack89 Dec 2011 #142

Actually Wikileaks has donated money to Mannings defense. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #156

Don't really have a point - Manning going to jail is good enough. hack89 Dec 2011 #160

And so will the NYT, the Washington Post, The Guardian and all other newspapers sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #178

I don't think the Swedes are after Assange for news reporting hack89 Dec 2011 #189

Well, if you ignore the toppling of dictators, eg, he 'has accomplished nothing'. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #198

Keep believing that if it makes you feel better hack89 Dec 2011 #201

There is a worldwide groundswell of outrage over Manning's treatment. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #203

You say that but I don't see it hack89 Dec 2011 #205

P.J. Crowley is not a 'fringe group'. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #212

And how many months ago was that? hack89 Dec 2011 #219

He may not have been a blip on your conscience, but he most certainly has been sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #223

Still don't see it hack89 Dec 2011 #225

You mean like the BBC, The Guardian sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #226

Got it - Americans are stupid. hack89 Dec 2011 #229

Wikileaks donated a paltry 15k, while it raked in millions, according to WAU Holland. msanthrope Dec 2011 #195

Manning never claimed he did not know to whom he was releasing the sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #202

I blame Wikileaks, for taking in millions, but only donating 15k to Manning. msanthrope Dec 2011 #221

You are free to blame whoever you want. Wikileaks has a staff of 2,000 sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #222

Kindly cite the paid staff of Wikileaks figure? Because the WAU Holland Report msanthrope Dec 2011 #224

Manning did know what he was releasing. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #51

So he read everyone and understood the contents? Don't think so. nt hack89 Dec 2011 #53

He was analyst, he did read what he released. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #64

He stole 260,000 messages - none of which had anything to do with his job as a low level analyst. hack89 Dec 2011 #71

I am confused, I thought this was a simple case of cstanleytech Dec 2011 #113

It's to paint him as reckless, as if concealing State Department cables EFerrari Dec 2011 #86

he stole over 250k cables to see if he could find a gotcha. not the same. at all. or kinda. nt seabeyond Dec 2011 #40

Actually, that is not what happened. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #54

actually, ya, it is exactly what happened. downloaded a mess of stuff seabeyond Dec 2011 #78

Can you explain how you are able to read Brad Manning's mind long distance EFerrari Dec 2011 #88

what is confusing. 250k cable, clueless what is in them. gave to someone else seabeyond Dec 2011 #94

There's lots of room to argue... Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #97

he stold 250k cables. fact. he gave them to someone to find a gotcha. fact. seabeyond Dec 2011 #109

He clearly states in the chat logs why he decided to blow the whistle & compile Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #117

Not 250, 250 thousand cables. Trust me, he did not read each of them before he released SlimJimmy Dec 2011 #187

of course he didnt. but we are going to pretend he read them all, and felt putin as alpha male so seabeyond Dec 2011 #191

I'm not going to pretend that he vetted 250k in material. Others can make that argument if they SlimJimmy Dec 2011 #218

Sorry, I left off the "K". I know it is 250,000 and I believe that he read enough Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #199

Unless he vetted them all before he released them, he didn't exercise due dilligence. SlimJimmy Dec 2011 #207

Yes. He did violate the law. I don't think anyone is denying that. Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #209

That's not the point. By not vetting the material, he didn't know for certain what he was releasing SlimJimmy Dec 2011 #217

If you don't take the trouble to find out the facts, true, then there would be no point in arguing. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #138

he did not know that was in over 250K cables. that is bullshit. now, regardless of the rest you seabeyond Dec 2011 #141

Yes, he did and he spoke about what was in them on the chat logs. So, I'm afraid you are wrong. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #157

so, he did not know what was in them, general feel and expressed what he felt would be found. right seabeyond Dec 2011 #158

Did you read my post? Yes, he did know what was in them. He said so and described accurately sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #161

yes i have. i have read the facts. not story selling to create him as a hero. nt seabeyond Dec 2011 #165

Then can you present the facts, because what you have presented so far is so removed from the sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #172

the only fact i have supplied is he did not KNOW what was in EVERY ONE of those 250k cables. seabeyond Dec 2011 #177

And that is not a fact. Please provide something to back it up. You have repeated it sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #180

ok, so manning knew how important and criminal it was telling world putin an alpha male seabeyond Dec 2011 #190

And that answers the question as to whether or not you actually sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #200

that is your spin sabrina. always the spin..... you know he didnt read over 250k cables seabeyond Dec 2011 #204

There is no spin in my comments. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #210

bribery by the west? hfojvt Dec 2011 #184

And what damage has it caused thus far? Eliminator Dec 2011 #119

he stole... criminal act. period. seabeyond Dec 2011 #121

And they murdered over 4000 American soldiers Eliminator Dec 2011 #147

one has nothing to do with the other. it is not agreeing he is a hero, seabeyond Dec 2011 #149

No point arguing any further as you have not read sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #125

Not my hero surfdog Dec 2011 #4

+1 n/t tammywammy Dec 2011 #5

+1... SidDithers Dec 2011 #11

Yes, a file dump, pure and simple. Saying anything else is being disingenuous to the extreme. SlimJimmy Dec 2011 #208

+1 .... pintobean Dec 2011 #22

Government officials will decide what they will permit the public to know under the new transparency Better Believe It Dec 2011 #66

+1 sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #69

+1 jefferson_dem Dec 2011 #28

Manning didn't release anything to the public. He gave it to Wikileaks. nt EFerrari Dec 2011 #33

And just what did he think Wikileaks was going to do with it? Besides making it public that is? hack89 Dec 2011 #37

Not at all. Wikileaks filters the information through reputable media EFerrari Dec 2011 #82

And yet all that information was made public hack89 Dec 2011 #105

Wikileaks record is better than the government's. Do you trust the government? EFerrari Dec 2011 #173

Perhaps - in any case Manning will be in jail for a long time and that is a good thing. nt hack89 Dec 2011 #188

Wikileaks is public tammywammy Dec 2011 #38

The massive data dump the corporate media talked about for months EFerrari Dec 2011 #176

That doesn't change what I wrote. tammywammy Dec 2011 #185

Just what do you think the letters l.e.a.k.s. polmaven Dec 2011 #47

Ha! Number23 Dec 2011 #124

So you don't think l.e.a.k.s. polmaven Dec 2011 #155

I am agreeing with you Number23 Dec 2011 #163

My apologies... polmaven Dec 2011 #211

Public means anyone without proper clearance and need to know. Nt DevonRex Dec 2011 #63

We need to know the truth and the people should be cleared to know the truth. Better Believe It Dec 2011 #68

Basically you're saying there should be no intelligence agencies DevonRex Dec 2011 #70

"Intelligence agencies"? Do you include government spy agencies that violate our civil liberties? Better Believe It Dec 2011 #99

If you are Mueller, it does. EFerrari Dec 2011 #81

+1 nt hack89 Dec 2011 #36

He's A Hero Of Mine... And Michael Moore... WillyT Dec 2011 #6

Same here, for both men. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #19

+1 And a hero for Truth. bahrbearian Dec 2011 #42

Indeed he is a hero. Nt xchrom Dec 2011 #8

Do the 'heroes' in your world punch women in the face? Ikonoklast Dec 2011 #139

If I call him a hero, does that mean I can be locked up too for 'supporting terrorism'? Electric Monk Dec 2011 #9

totally agree Ichingcarpenter Dec 2011 #16

Not to me - he deserves any punishment he receives. nt hack89 Dec 2011 #10

Indeed he is a hero. Nt William769 Dec 2011 #12

To say he isn't a traitor is absurd surfdog Dec 2011 #15

He took an oath, to defend and protect the Constitution. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #56

He certainly did not betray me. girl gone mad Dec 2011 #85

And will you please post the oath to the military commanders that Manning took? Better Believe It Dec 2011 #102

K&R MichaelMcGuire Dec 2011 #17

If you believe that it's ok to lie to people to avoid unrest, he's a traitor cowcommander Dec 2011 #18

He broke the law dailey010 Dec 2011 #21

Whatever his motivation was noamnety Dec 2011 #25

The Founding Fathers broke the law. Should they be called traitors? sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #130

The criminal acts of this government betray the people our nation... AntiFascist Dec 2011 #26

Regardless of intent or sexual orientation malthaussen Dec 2011 #29

Agreed dailey010 Dec 2011 #34

Some posters seem to have the impression that treestar Dec 2011 #120

Manning is a hero to me. HelenWheels Dec 2011 #30

I don't think what he did was particularly heroic, but... Hippo_Tron Dec 2011 #31

Sadly, whistleblowing on murderers is considered a crime by this administration. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #39

I stopped having Heroes a long time ago....but until Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Woo and Pachamama Dec 2011 #41

Unrec, why is this filfth on the Greatest Page? itsrobert Dec 2011 #43

I believe its on the Greatest Page because this is "The Democratic" Underground... Pachamama Dec 2011 #49

No, because some cliche group got it there itsrobert Dec 2011 #58

Cliche? Electric Monk Dec 2011 #73

I think he's still looking for an apostrophe for the contraction in his screen name DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2011 #227

The post was taken off the Greatest Page due to your protest I assume. Better Believe It Dec 2011 #72

I did not alert on it itsrobert Dec 2011 #74

Agreed...nt SidDithers Dec 2011 #67

He's a traitor. He didn't know or care what he released. DevonRex Dec 2011 #44

He did know what he released, which is why he released it. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #57

LOL. It was a massive file dump. DevonRex Dec 2011 #65

It was a recklessly indiscriminate massive file dump. AtomicKitten Dec 2011 #76

It was a massive amount of files, yes. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #77

So was the Pentagon Papers. girl gone mad Dec 2011 #87

that oath is just words dana_b Dec 2011 #112

The definition of "hero" MineralMan Dec 2011 #45

If there were no consequences for doing what was right, he would not be hero. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #59

You sure think highly of yourself. girl gone mad Dec 2011 #89

I'm not sure how you get there from what I said. MineralMan Dec 2011 #91

"there is no definition of "hero" that I know of that includes him" girl gone mad Dec 2011 #92

I'm familiar with all of those quotations. MineralMan Dec 2011 #93

My definition of a national hero is.. girl gone mad Dec 2011 #95

My definition of a hero differs from yours. MineralMan Dec 2011 #96

you may like a different brand of hero than mine. Whisp Dec 2011 #46

Extreme A-holes like Scooter Libby & Dick Cheney? Pachamama Dec 2011 #48

lots of them out there, isn't there? Whisp Dec 2011 #80

If you are ordered to involve yourself in the commission of a crime that violated sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #60

I understand that Manning didn't even know what he was releasing. Whisp Dec 2011 #79

How is that any different than what Ellsberg did? girl gone mad Dec 2011 #90

if there were 63 more Mannings, and Whisp Dec 2011 #100

What a muddle your post is! Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #103

If these people took personal risks in order to leak evidence of war crimes.. girl gone mad Dec 2011 #104

you seem to consider Manning a hero for releasing war crimes Bodhi BloodWave Dec 2011 #167

but as the poster below said, what if the info isn't all about war crimes? Whisp Dec 2011 #192

It is not now, and never has been, the job of a whistleblower.. girl gone mad Jan 2012 #230

don't question my 'progressiveness' and I won't yours Whisp Jan 2012 #231

Your understanding is incorrect, he not only knew what he was releasing, sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #144

Hero. Gimme a *hard* one, whydonchya. K and R Smarmie Doofus Dec 2011 #61

Kick! Rec! Manning is a hero. Vanje Dec 2011 #75

Why didn't he simply comply with the Military Whistleblower Protection Act? hack89 Dec 2011 #106

Maybe he felt he couldnt trust the Inspector General? Other than that I am cstanleytech Dec 2011 #114

He could have gone to any member of Congress - he could have by-passed the military completely. nt hack89 Dec 2011 #115

Yeah. That strategy worked out great for Ellsberg. Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #123

Oh? What was the comparable law called back then seeing as the cstanleytech Dec 2011 #126

But Ellsberg tried first. Do you think Kucinich or Sanders would have turned Manning away? hack89 Dec 2011 #127

"He could have gone to any member of Congress" Sure. Anyone. Leiberman for example. Better Believe It Dec 2011 #135

You think Kucinich or Sanders would have turned Manning away? They would cover up war crimes? hack89 Dec 2011 #140

He is niether. The Midway Rebel Dec 2011 #118

Well, my view of him is tied to the Bush era war crimes. During that time many people wished sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #134

sabrina let me ask you something please? cstanleytech Dec 2011 #145

Rosa Parks, and many others, "broke the law" when other means were available. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #150

No, I do not. The Bush administration tried to make that claim, that their intent was good so sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #151

You will have to answer that for yourself sabrina as cstanleytech Dec 2011 #152

Well, breaking bad laws, such as Rosa Parks did (and I'm sure there were people who condemned sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #154

Manning is no Rosa Parks though. cstanleytech Dec 2011 #159

He certainly isn't. The federal government is trying to put him in prison for life! Better Believe It Dec 2011 #162

Just when I thought your comments saying the woman that Manning punched "deserved it" Number23 Dec 2011 #164

It is times like this that this place becomes a caricature of itself Number23 Dec 2011 #166

Hey, dont yell at me instead yell at the ones trying to claim he is like her. cstanleytech Dec 2011 #174

I was AGREEING with you Number23 Dec 2011 #206

Ah sorry, been sick since christmas eve and cstanleytech Dec 2011 #213

No problem. Hope you're feeling better. Number23 Dec 2011 #214

Thank you and yes i am over most of the hacking up a lung part cstanleytech Dec 2011 #215

i have a rather simple view on the matter Bodhi BloodWave Dec 2011 #168

That's a reasonable position to take. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #171

The video of the helicopter attack? Well ok I suppose I could see mitigating circumstances cstanleytech Dec 2011 #179

Well, he didn't say his ONLY goal was to reveal war crimes. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #181

*shrug* Our justice system isnt perfect true cstanleytech Dec 2011 #182

Not my hero. Boy the "hero bar" is awful low if Manning's actions can be considered "heroic". n/t cherokeeprogressive Dec 2011 #146

Actually, it's not so Black and White. johnaries Dec 2011 #148

"As a member of the Military, he joined the Military under duress" EX500rider Dec 2011 #170

WHAT???? How was he forced to join the military???? Please explain this? nt msanthrope Dec 2011 #194

Truth is the first casualty BeHereNow Dec 2011 #169

I hadn't seen that yet. Thanks for posting. nt Electric Monk Dec 2011 #186

One person's villain is another Persons' hero. Quartermass Dec 2011 #175

He saved many innocent lives. Zhade Dec 2011 #183

Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #196

Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #197

Whatever he is, he is not a traitor. alarimer Dec 2011 #228