If you join the military, yes, you have to follow orders.

[cali]

And yes, this is about Manning. I'm sorry for him. I support wikileaks, and I'm glad the information being released is out there, but the military is not a place where you get to decide what orders to follow and when- with the obvious exception of being ordered to commit a war (or any other) crime. And that's true no matter how strongly held your beliefs are. Look at the birther Lakin. He refused to deploy because he didn't believe that President Obama is the rightful CoC. Sorry, you just can't do that in the military. And the same goes for Manning.

Don't like the rigidity of the armed forces? don't join it. It's just not a place where you can make decisions like Lakin and Manning did.

Now as for being a hero, I don't know enough about Manning to make that call. IF he knew that he was releasing this information because he felt passionately that it was vital to do so, to expose crimes, AND he was aware of the risk he was running and was willing to accept it, then yes, he's a hero.

Have fun unreccing to your wee hearts' content.

[gratuitous]

1. Part of civil disobedience is accepting the consequences

However, that doesn't mean that I have to sit idly by and excuse the actions of what is supposed to be my government in torturing someone that has offended it. So, whether it's Private Bradley Manning being tortured without due process or any investigation at all that I can discern, or Lt. Col. Lakin - who, as far as I can tell, was treated with kid gloves in spite of his voluntary confession of wrongdoing - I don't have to support their being confined under cruel or inhumane conditions. There was a time when the United States was against that sort of thing, no matter whether the person in question was the most heinous criminal or simply the victim of official oppression.

But 9/11 changed many things, apparently.

[cali]

4. I am by no means saying that mistreatment or torture of any kind is acceptable

that was not my point. I think that should have been obvious even to the most casual of readers. There is nothing in my post that condones mistreatment or torture.

[gratuitous]

12. Now, now

I never said you did condone Private Manning's torture, which should have been obvious to even the touchiest of readers.

[qazplm]

13. kid gloves?

Lakin was dismissed which is equivalent of a dishonorable discharge, a result usually reserved for rapists and murders among enlisted by the way, he was about three years from vesting retirement pay well over a million dollars that is gone now, and he spends five months minimum in jail, six months maximum. Enlisted who desert are these days typically getting similar confinement and a bad-conduct discharge.

How is that kid gloves??

As for Manning, I am concerned about his current conditions as well. It needs to be investigated. Unfortunately, until the case is referred, the avenue for that investigation is not the judge. Once it is referred, the judge can then intervene and the conditions improved or alternatively credit given on any sentence for any violations. However, what he did was illegal and he should be punished for it.

[WingDinger]

2. Becoming complicit, in war crimes is a crime. Anything over a misdemeanor, you are required

to report. You can get in trouble for not doing so.

[cali]

7. How was Manning complicit in a war crime? Reading about a possible war crime

in intelligence reports is not complicity.

[WingDinger]

8. You are required to report them.

maybe not publish them, and then write a book though.

[qazplm]

14. which he could have done

up his chain of command and fulfilled his obligations morally and legally.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. Which, according to some scuttlebutt, he did - and it went no farther.

Meaning, those he reported to were complicit in hiding war crimes. When the chain of command won't do the job after he gives them the information, is he somehow absolved from any responsibility when the coverup continues? Is his moral obligation fulfilled?

How mnay links of the chain was he supposed to skip?

All he did was skip them all, and give the information to the public for whom the military supposedly works.

[cali]

21. what scuttlebutt? link, please.

[RaleighNCDUer]

35. No links - that's why it is called 'scuttlebutt'.

I have read that he did talk about what he found to his superiors and they basically told him to mind his own business. I can't support that because there is NO real news about this out there - the military is controlling all the sources, and they aren't talking.

That's why threads like this abound with scuttlebutt.

[Statistical]

32. There are many valid & legal channels.

JAG, Inspectors General, Chain of Command, or even finding a sympathetic Congressman who is against the war (and has clearance).

Downloading 250,000 random and unrelated classified documents and handing it over to a foreign entity is not a valid recourse.

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. And speaking of scuttlebutt - he has only admitted to releasing the

helicopter murders to Wilileaks. The idea that he had anything to do with the diplomatic cables is scuttlebutt.

[Statistical]

38. Hardly

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/

Llano reports that Manning gave 4 pieces of intelligence to wikileaks.
* The helicopter video
* Garani airstrike video
* Intelligence report on wikileaks
* 250,000 international cables

Now Llano may be lying but it seems highly suspect that
a) he is telling the truth about helicopter video
b) he made up the 250,000 docs prior to wikileaks even acknowledging them have them.

SIPRNET and JWICS keep incredibly detailed records. Obviously more will come on as the trial proceeds.

If Manning didn't release the 250,000 documents that changes my assesment. If it turns out he DID does it change yours?

[Capitalocracy]

40. How far do you think he was going to get with that?

The president was ordering crimes to be committed. Now, I don't know what other actions Manning may have taken, I haven't heard any good source making a claim either way, but where do you turn when the corruption is so rampant that the crimes reach the presidency? There's only one authority to turn to, and that's the electorate. I agree that you have to try legal channels first, but I think there's a certain level of justification when those legal channels are obviously closed and, as is the case in Wikileaks, in which information is submitted anonymously, you can't go back after getting the information out. Assuming he didn't report crimes to his superiors, maybe it was because he was afraid that he would suffer consequences or be scrutinized and watched more closely, making it impossible to get the information out later.

Honestly, crimes were exposed by this whistleblower, and I think the difference between what he thought was the best way to expose them and what some people may think he could've done going through the "proper channels" is not enough to justify prosecution and imprisonment. The bottom line is he did the right thing, and we should be very careful about scrutinizing the specifics and starting a witch hunt. If we want a working democracy, it's a bad idea to put that kind of chilling effect on whistleblowing.

[Statistical]

41. He could have exposed them by going to the media with unclassified report.

He could have found a sympathizer in Congress and tried to push for Congressional inquiry. He could have reported it outside the Chain of Command to JAG or inspector's general. There have been prosecutions and convictions for war crimes in Iraq & Afghanistan. Maybe those methods wouldn't have worked but he could have tried.

He release classified material to a foreign entity. If that isn't against the law then what involving classified material possibly could be?

I work with classified material only a daily basis. We can't have a situation where each individual gets to choose what they "feel" is necessary to divulge. What if someone else felt that divulging US nuclear systems would make the world safer (because US would no longer have a competitive advantage and would need to rely less of nuclear systems).

When one gets a clearance all this is very plainly explained, the limits of clearance are also explained. There are thing I can't even tell my wife much less the media. If someone (Manning or anyone else) feels that is a responsibility and limitation they can't deal with then don't accept a secured position. If you do then you are bound by those rules.

[sabrina 1]

42. According to reports, part of his job was to 'round up detainees' and

hand them over to the 'new' Iraqi forces. He learned that those forces were torturing them. He tried to report it, but was ignored. It wasn't just reading about it in documents, if the reports are true, he was being asked to actively participate in a crime.

Some of the leaked Wikileaks documents confirm that the Iraqis WERE torturing prisoners AND that the U.S. knew about it.

We don't forgive the German soldiers whose excuses were that they were following orders. Many of them were convicted at Nuremberg for doing just that. What people here are saying is that even if a soldier does what he is supposed to do, he will still go to jail? That flies in the face of what we claim to be. If superior officers are participating in crimes then they should be the ones who are held accountable. As far as I know, all of the troops are made familiar with the Geneva Conventions. What is the point of doing that if they mean nothing?

Sorry, but if that really is how things are, then something has gone very wrong. As we saw, and agreed upon, when Bush was president.

[Capitalocracy]

54. Source?

Not because I'm questioning you, just because that's such an important statement that I'm going to start repeating it to anyone who starts talking about how Manning did the crime and he should do the time, and I'd like to be able to hit 'em with a link.

[sabrina 1]

57. Thanks for asking for a link, I should have included one myself.

I will say that most of what we are being told about Manning seems to be coming from one source, the not very credibile hacker, Lamos. So it's hard to know what is the truth and what is not. As Glenn Greenwald points out, there is a lot that needs to be known about Lamos who claims Manning confided in him about what he did. So, I can't say for sure what is fact and what might be fiction. But, having said that, I have read several reports explaining why Manning did what he did.

This is from the British Independent which I believe is a fairly good source:

The under-appreciated heroes of 2010

Under-Appreciated Person One: Bradley Manning. While we were all fixated on Julian Assange, the story of the young American soldier who actually leaked the classified documents passed almost unnoticed. If Manning was mentioned at all, it was to be described as an impetuous, angry kid who downloaded the documents on to a CD and leaked them as a result of a "grudge" or "tantrum".

Here's what really happened. Manning signed up when he was just 18, believing he would be protecting and defending his country and the cause of freedom. He soon found himself sent to Iraq, where he was ordered to round up and hand over Iraqi civilians to America's new Iraqi allies, who he could see were then torturing them with electrical drills and other implements.

The only "crime" committed by many of these people was to write "scholarly critiques" of the occupation or the new people in charge. He knew torture was a crime under US, Iraqi and international law, so he went to his military supervisor and explained what was going on. He was told to shut up and get back to herding up Iraqis.

Manning had to choose between being complicit in these atrocities, or not. At the age of 21, he made a brave choice: to put human rights before his own interests. He found the classified military documents revealing that the US was covering up the deaths of 15,000 Iraqis and had a de facto policy of allowing the Iraqis they had installed in power to carry out torture – and he decided he had a moral obligation to show them to the American people.

To prevent the major crime of torturing and murdering innocents, he committed the minor crime of leaking the evidence. He has spent the last seven months in solitary confinement – a punishment that causes many prisoners to go mad, and which the US National Commission on Prisons called "torturous". He is expected to be sentenced to 80 years in jail at least. The people who allowed torture have faced no punishment at all. Manning's decision was no "tantrum" – it was one of the most admirable stands for justice and freedom of 2010.

As you probably know, documents leaked by Wikileaks confirmed that the 'New Iraqi Forces' were torturing prisoners and that the U.S. knew about it but still handed over detainees to them and did nothing to stop it. That makes me think that Manning did leak those particular documents, which makes him a hero imho.

[Capitalocracy]

59. There's something else in that snippet you posted that's extremely important.

The fact that more than just using illegal means (torture) against violent resistance to the occupation, more than just sweeping up a few innocent people along with those violent insurgents, there appears to be an actual war on dissent targeting nonviolent scholars similar to the dirty wars in the military dictatorships we've installed and backed throughout history. That's something I've never seen reported elsewhere. And I'd love to read some of those scholarly critiques!

Obviously I like to keep an open mind and see all the facts, but if this is true, even the idea that he chose to commit an act of civil disobedience, even if it is for the greater good, but should still be punished for leaking the documents, is just wrong. He's a hero and he deserves a medal, not to have his mind dismantled in solitary confinement. They're trying to make an example of him.

[pacalo]

3. Those who presided over the Nuremberg trials would disagree.

Nazis were convicted & executed because of their sense of "duty".

[cali]

5. you evidently know very little about the Nuremberg Trials.

[pacalo]

17. Care to back up your snarky remark?

[Very_Boring_Name]

20. Sounds like you know very little about the Nuremberg Trials

"Just following orders" was -THE- Nazi defense argument.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Very_Boring_Name]

25. Why do I even bother? May as well let the ignorant remain as such

The nuremberg defense. Look it up sweetie pie. It's common knowledge for anyone who graduated high school.

[pacalo]

Why you continue to get away with how rudely you treat people here is way beyond my

comprehension. And, honey, you may be the "smartest" in the room, but I'll match wits with you anytime.

On edit, this was a reply to #23, not the OP.

[pacalo]

31. Thank you, VBN.

[Saturday]

6. I find it hard to believe that he was even aware of

what was in every document he got. Of course he didn't read every one so how could he know or fell passioately about any of it. I agree, don't join the military if you don't like rules.

[Dawson Leery]

9. I have never and will never advise anyone to join.

[LuvNewcastle]

10. Yes, well, rules are made to be broken.

I think what he did was the patriotic thing to do. Doing the right thing is sometimes illegal. If Manning's supporters can put political pressure on the President or the military to ease his suffering, I believe that is what they should do.

[Recursion]

11. Or, you can disobey them and take the consequences (nt)

[rhett o rick]

15. Yes, disobey and be tortured. Cheney might as well be still in charge. nm

[The Straight Story]

16. When you join congress you agree to follow the constitution

Now if we could just jail those who don't.

[kayakjohnny]

18. And with that,

you are tonight's thread-winner.

:toast:

[msongs]

22. from the white house to the grunts piling up the war crimes - merry xmas indeed nt

[Obamanaut]

24. A 'rec' for an honest OP. nt

[pacalo]

37. "Unrec" for OP's attitude toward others.

[WillyT]

26. LEGAL Orders... Yes... Determined At Nuremburg...

:shrug:

[Statistical]

33. What is illegal about keeping classified documents secure.

Manning had multiple methods to report this issue in a legal and confidential manner.
He could also have been a whistleblower without revealing the classified contents.
He also could have enlisted the aid of a someone in Congress who would take up the issue.

Instead he took the "war crime" video and grabbed 250,000 random unrelated docs and released them to a foreign entity.

Sorry he should and likely will spend the rest of his life in prison. Period. PFC don't get to decide what documents are to be released.

[Capitalocracy]

55. Who does?

Who does get to decide?

[cali]

46. the miscomprehension about the Nuremberg Trials in this thread is

appalling.

[Towlie]

27. "with the obvious exception of being ordered to commit a war (or any other) crime"?

How is that distinct from being an accessory to a war (or any other) crime by helping to conceal it? What's the difference that makes one permissible and the other not?

[Statistical]

34. So the 250,000 documents he released are all war crimes?

The cables which undermine State Dept legal interactions with other sovereign entities are "war crimes".

If he ONLY released war crimes he believed were being covered up you might have a point (a dubious one under the law) but he didn't thus that "defense" is invalid.

[H2O Man]

28. Curious OP & thread.

When one joins the US military, they are, in effect, surrendering their individuality. "Uniforms," hair cuts, etc.

From the admittedly little I know about this situation, Manning acted as an individual. Were he either booted out, or held accountable in some legal fashion, that would be acceptable and expected.

However, he is being kept in pre-trial conditions that are, beyond debate, a cruel form of torture. It's curious that DUers would either be A-okay with that, or even stranger, debate non-essential aspects of the case.

[cali]

50. there is nothing in the OP condoning the mistreatment of Manning

to infer that there is, is very curious indeed. And there is nothing non-essential about pointing out how the military works.

[H2O Man]

53. As I noted

in my response to the OP & thread, it is curious that anyone would miss the essential point in the dynamics of the case. And that point is that this fellow is presently being subjected to torture -- by the government.

The OP reminds me of when some people have expressed their opinion that American soldiers who are maimed or killed in, say, Iraq, signed up for it. It requires an extremely callous heart to miss the essential point there, as well. Obviously, kids in the military are aware, on any one of a variety of levels, that in joining the military, they risk injury and death. Because -- as you note in the OP -- the military is what it is.

The greatest threat to humanity, in my opinion, is when people deny their sense of compassion. I would agree 100% that you sincerely do not believe that your OP in any way does this. But I respectfully disagree. And I note that what you do not see is obvious to many others besides myself. I say this as a person who likes you. I understand that you are likely to take my response in an unintended way.

Peace,
Pat

[Better Believe It]

29. Including illegal orders and orders to keep quite and not express your political views?

People do not lose their constitutional right of free speech simply by joining or being inducted into the military.

What a soldier does on his or her time and out of uniform is entirely their business for starters.

And even what GI's say and do while in uniform depends upon their level of political organization and numbers.

Look at all of the anti-war protests organized by soldiers at literally dozens of military installations at home and abroad during the Vietnam war.

And of course, we know what GI's did in Vietnam. If memory serves me right, entire units decided on whether to conduct certain military operations the democratic way .... they took votes on proposals made by their officers. The GI's considered them to be more in the line of suggestions rather than commands. So they voted. Yea for democracy! And they frequently rejected the suggestions of their officers.

Bet you would have just loved that! :)

And how about those mass marches and other protests by American soldiers demanding to be demobilized and sent home after WWII?

Now that was an example of soldier power!

Would you like more information on that?

Imperial armies don't always work out the way rulers want them to.

[Statistical]

39. You have no Constitutional right to release classified information.

So your entire premise is rather faulty.

Even if one had a Constitutionally protected right to expose war crimes that are being "covered up" that right wouldn't extended to 250,000 unrelated documents.

[Better Believe It]

43. Millions of documents are "classified" in order to deceive the American people.

With rare exceptions, they are not being classified to "protect" us from "terrorists" or any other real enemies that threaten us.

[LanternWaste]

30. Often times we may find two wholly valid moral obligations

Often times we may find two wholly valid moral obligations (in and of themselves) compelling us to act in manners which can contradict each other. Following the one necessarily means if not willful contrivance against, then at the least ethical abandonment pf the other. As Shakespeare so wonderfully put it, "These two are heavy orisons 'gainst my soul."

If he indeed falls into that category (which I believe he has), and this wasn't a mercenary means for quick fame, I am in no place to damn him for making an honest choice after being presented with an ethical dilemma.

While he did voluntarily joined the armed forces, he did not in doing so, give up the predilection of humanity for attempting to do the right thing so often. I certainly do not believe the discipline of the armed forces denies us our moral beliefs and ethical obligations. Nor should it.

As to the difference between Manning and Lakin? It's my opinion was one due solely to a sincere belief in doing the right thing, while the other was done with a sincere belief in a political agenda. But you're are right-- you may not do that in the army, or in business, or even in your neighborhood... without consequences of varying degrees. He has accepted his.

ed: sp

[DeadEyeDyck]

44. I grew up a military brat and that is a fact

My Dad is a retired Green Beret. He say's Manning will never see the light of day. It is not looking very good for this kid.

[lamp_shade]

45. Kick and Recommend

[Bonobo]

47. And how does "I was just following orders" square with your little formulation? nt

[robcon]

48. No evidence of illegal orders.

n/t

[cali]

49. was he ordered to commit a war crime?

no.

[Bonobo]

51. No but he was aware of the illegal and immoral acts being committed and covered up. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

52. What's your opinion of Daniel Ellsberg?

[onenote]

56. I think Ellsberg was a hero

and that he was fortunate not to have faced jail time for disclosing the Pentagon Papers. If the Nixon administration itself had not been so lawless and guilty of committing acts that led the court hearing the case against Ellsberg to declare a mistrial, he might well have been convicted (even though efforts to force the NY Times and Washington Post not to publish the Pentagon Papers were found to consitute an unconsitutional prior restraint on the press).

[proud2BlibKansan]

60. Ellsberg was also military

It was while he was serving in Vietnam that he saw the lies being told to the American people.

[Little Star]

58. Damn!...

I totally agree with this OP. I do feel sorry for him. K&R