Don't Forget Bradley Manning

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
It is nearing the end of Bradley Manning Trial and there seems very little coverage.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/02/us/manning-court-martial


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/10/bardley-manning-defence-rests-wikileaks


I think this should have been titled Snowden Shouldn't Distract Us From Bradley Manning
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
There is worldwide support for Bradley Manning in his exposure of wrongdoing by the military. Here is a good page which highlights how people can get involved and make a difference in defending his brave actions.

http://www.bradleymanning.org/

One of the links says:
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Members of the European Parliament open letter raises issues of persecution and torture of Bradley Manning.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/29/bradley-manning-mep-open-letter
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Did you know that before any of this happened, his commanding officer had had the bolt removed from his gun, because he was considered a suicide risk? The Army should have sent him home long before this happened, they failed him, in not doing that. He was troubled, and had a bad history of 'problems. I understand that a lot of the 'mistreatment' was linked to him being considered suicidal.

I can hear you and others screaming if he had not been properly kept from committing suicide. It would have been great fuel for the conspiracy folks and it would have been negligence on the part of the Army.


 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I think the verdict itself is a relatively good one for him under the circumstances. Fingers crossed for him with the sentence.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I do not approve of what he did, but I feel sorry for him. He as used, first, by the Army, when it should have been obvious that he was troubled, then used and abandoned by Assage. I hope that that is taken into account on his sentence, if it can be.
 
I do not approve of what he did, but I feel sorry for him. He as used, first, by the Army, when it should have been obvious that he was troubled, then used and abandoned by Assage. I hope that that is taken into account on his sentence, if it can be.

My take is that he was lucky to get off with the verdicts he did.
If this was thirty years ago in the early 80's with Reagan and the Cold War at it's peak he would have been facing the chair.

You can make the arguement that he was young and misguided.
I agree.
I'm sure that after spending 3 years in lock-up he would re-think it.

But is he a "whistle-blower"??

No. He may think he was but he wasn't.
He stole ....................... 700,000 ........................ documents.
This isn't a case of the Pentagon Papers or maybe even Snowden.
The guy downloaded as much stuff as he could and didn't read 99% of it. And that is a kind figure.

I do feel for him. But I also see why the US Government is coming down hard on him.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I think the verdict itself is a relatively good one for him under the circumstances. Fingers crossed for him with the sentence.
Yes fingers crossed for him. He has a lot of support from around the world. I hope it counts. I see someone who is a whistleblower on war atrocities. Collateral murder. The public have a right to know what is being done in their name. What is striking is the fact that the whistleblower is prosecuted to the nth degree whilst the crimes he exposes are swept under the carpet.
 
Yes fingers crossed for him. He has a lot of support from around the world. I hope it counts. I see someone who is a whistleblower on war atrocities. Collateral murder. The public have a right to know what is being done in their name. What is striking is the fact that the whistleblower is prosecuted to the nth degree whilst the crimes he exposes are swept under the carpet.

A bunch of dirty stuff went down in those Wars. Still does. Agreed.....
Yet.....
Should someone be considered a whistleblower if they copy the US Government server and send it overseas?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I do not approve of what he did, but I feel sorry for him. He as used, first, by the Army, when it should have been obvious that he was troubled, then used and abandoned by Assage. I hope that that is taken into account on his sentence, if it can be.
I don't see how you can make such a false accusation. Assange had nothing to do with it apart from providing a platform. You seem to forget that anyone who crosses the U.S government is hunted/persecuted worldwide, whatever their nationality. But if you don't see that as an 'overreach' you are entitled to your opinion.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
A bunch of dirty stuff went down in those Wars. Still does. Agreed.....
Yet.....
Should someone be considered a whistleblower if they copy the US Government server and send it overseas?
He didn't as far as I know. He selected information and copied the information. No information has been published which 'aids the enemy'. It was about exposing excesses and wrongdoing. He is a whistleblower, not a traitor afaiac and many others too.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Did you know that before any of this happened, his commanding officer had had the bolt removed from his gun, because he was considered a suicide risk? The Army should have sent him home long before this happened, they failed him, in not doing that. He was troubled, and had a bad history of 'problems. I understand that a lot of the 'mistreatment' was linked to him being considered suicidal.

I can hear you and others screaming if he had not been properly kept from committing suicide. It would have been great fuel for the conspiracy folks and it would have been negligence on the part of the Army.


It is amazing how much 'information' gets published when it backs the government and discredits its detractors. The U.S government is so 'open' and 'informative' and 'friendly'... when it wants. How nice.

Not so forthcoming when it comes to telling the truth about its regime change policies or spying on the general public or its rapacity for warmongering and disinformation though is it?
 
He didn't as far as I know. He selected information and copied the information. No information has been published which 'aids the enemy'. It was about exposing excesses and wrongdoing. He is a whistleblower, not a traitor afaiac and many others too.

"He selected information and copied the information".

The question I have is how do you selectively copy 700,000 documents?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
"He selected information and copied the information".

The question I have is how do you selectively copy 700,000 documents?
In fact much of it was already in the public domain.

Posters on this site should understand. Many theories are put forward and the cry goes up, 'Where is the evidence', 'That is just someone saying something, where is the paperwork etc... the proof'. Like Snowden, he needed the proof otherwise it is just another unsupported allegation. You cannot have it both ways.

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/7/10/testifying_for_bradley_mannings_defense_ex

 
In fact much of it was already in the public domain.

Posters on this site should understand. Many theories are put forward and the cry goes up, 'Where is the evidence', 'That is just someone saying something, where is the paperwork etc... the proof'. Like Snowden, he needed the proof otherwise it is just another unsupported allegation. You cannot have it both ways.

Ultimately that is irrelevant. The US Government does some crazy and illegal stuff. Agreed.

So we are going to now redefine whistleblower status to say that anyone who steals/copies close to a million Government documents
and throws them out there- in the hopes that something sticks - is now a whistleblower????????

Snowden actually has much more of a case to be made.
And I will reserve judgement on it because it is early and we don't know everything.

Manning? I'm sure he wishes he had that one back.............
 
theeAlchemist....
Ellsberg was from a completely different generation.
Where you had to do things the old fashioned way.
Not just copy a disc or stick in a flashdrive.

Manning had access probably to alot of stuff.
And it doesn't appear this 'plan' was really thought out too well.
Ellsberg is commenting as a horse and buggy man in a Jet Age.
He never stole close to a million documents.
Back then you would have probably needed a truck.

Soooo.........................
I respect what he did.

But...............

An opinion based on principle that needs to be reconciled to the 21st Century.
And instant data transfer.
God doesn't love dinosaurs......................................... hehehlolol
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
@Oxymoron Just testing this tagging lark but what did you think of the sentence of 35 years? That always sounds harsh but real terms just over 7. I could not see him getting the full whack but given his age he has not done to bad.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
@Oxymoron Just testing this tagging lark but what did you think of the sentence of 35 years? That always sounds harsh but real terms just over 7. I could not see him getting the full whack but given his age he has not done to bad.
Tagging works perfectly. Is it in real terms a 7 year sentence? Does the time he has spent in custody count as part of the sentence?
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Tagging works perfectly. Is it in real terms a 7 year sentence? Does the time he has spent in custody count as part of the sentence?
Yes. He got a little extra added to time served as well. The US system seems a little more complex than the UK but he should be out in 7 (maybe 8 dependant on news source).
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Yes. He got a little extra added to time served as well. The US system seems a little more complex than the UK but he should be out in 7 (maybe 8 dependant on news source).
Thanks. I think that is good news. I thought when they said 35 years they meant 35 years. I don't understand their system of sentencing... all this 650 years or even 150 years etc seems a nonsense to me.

I still think it excessive but nowhere near as draconian as I thought. It is a difficult case because of the wide ranging implications.
 

pseacraft

Active Member
I think you will find that he will do the full term of 35 years and rightfully so. No one to my knowledge who has committed espionage as ever been released early with the exception of the Soviet spies in the Cold War Spy vs Spy trades ala Check Point Charlie. Personally, he only got his little pee pee slapped, he deserves a bullet but so do a lot of other misguided individuals who leaked materials they swore an oath to protect and/or sold out.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I think you will find that he will do the full term of 35 years and rightfully so. No one to my knowledge who has committed espionage as ever been released early with the exception of the Soviet spies in the Cold War Spy vs Spy trades ala Check Point Charlie. Personally, he only got his little pee pee slapped, he deserves a bullet but so do a lot of other misguided individuals who leaked materials they swore an oath to protect and/or sold out.
It is good to know where people are coming from so thanks for your honesty in posting your view. I get the impression that many debunkers, (not all), hold similar types of view but prefer to hold them close to their chest and their views/motivations can only perceived by examining their debunking strategy.

Is there any substantive indication as to how long he will serve, (i.e. sentencing recommendations)?

Of course if there is sufficient unrest and political change as many hope for, Manning could become another cause célèbre like Nelson Mandela.
 

pseacraft

Active Member
I think he will be quickly and quietly forgotten by the masses. There are several folks in a similar boat as him that have had governments of alleged allies lobby on their behalf all for not. This will remain the status quo. Many want to believe Manning is a hero but those whose lives he put at risk, on both sides of the coin he is far from it. A man is nothing when he breaks an oath because all we are in the end is what our word/honor is, where as Mandela was a true political prisonner who never wavered for his cause nor offered excuses.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I think he will be quickly and quietly forgotten by the masses. There are several folks in a similar boat as him that have had governments of alleged allies lobby on their behalf all for not. This will remain the status quo. Many want to believe Manning is a hero but those whose lives he put at risk, on both sides of the coin he is far from it. A man is nothing when he breaks an oath because all we are in the end is what our word/honor is, where as Mandela was a true political prisonner who never wavered for his cause nor offered excuses.
So which bits of leaked info do you think most put lives at risk? Top 2 or 3 would be good.

And I am interested to know when in your opinion it is ok, if at all, to break official secrets oaths?

Perhaps a couple of examples:

If you witness state sanctioned murder or torture? Yes/No
If you had evidence of a false flag op? Yes/No
If you had evidence that a war/wars was/were being being planned on false allegations/evidence? Yes/No

 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Which bits? no comment

When is it 'ok' to betray your country? Never period, that is the point of it.
So you don't know which parts of the leaked info "put peoples lives in danger"?

And anything your government does is ok with you is it? Even illegal wars, nuking people, murdering civilians, chemical/biological weapons, torture, police state, the works?

I suggest (and so does the Constitution), that not to stand up against corruption and abuse of power from 'without or within' is the real treason.

What Manning exposed was torture and murder and corruption. That makes him a whistleblower, a hero and worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize, (if it had any value after being desecrated by being awarded to the likes of Kissinger and Obama).

http://tvnewslies.org/html/all_enemies__foreign_and_domes.html
 
Last edited:

pseacraft

Active Member
No comment because I am not as stupid as you would like me to be. I will neither confirm nor deny anything what so ever of the materials that individual or another of his ilk has or will distribute unlawfully.

You may 'suggest' but then you are wrong in so doing, as the US's Armed Forces "oath of enlistment" is not the same as what you termed "official secrets oath". It is called a "Non-Disclosure Agreement" and it clearly outlines the implications of violation of said signed agreement.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
No comment because I am not as stupid as you would like me to be. I will neither confirm nor deny anything what so ever of the materials that individual or another of his ilk has or will distribute unlawfully.

You may 'suggest' but then you are wrong in so doing, as the US's Armed Forces "oath of enlistment" is not the same as what you termed "official secrets oath". It is called a "Non-Disclosure Agreement" and it clearly outlines the implications of violation of said signed agreement.
Yep, they call it the Official Secrets Act in the U.K... amounts to the same thing.

Like I said, once you make that oath... anything goes then, even though it clearly states "against all enemies, foreign and domestic"? Thought you would have had that seared into your brain as it appears to mean so much to you... if you had been enlisted and therefore compelled to take the oath.
 
Last edited:

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Yep, they call it the Official Secrets Act in the U.K... amounts to the same thing.

Like I said, once you make that oath... anything goes then?
Sorry to be pedantic but the Official Secrets Act applies to the whole population. If you work in a government department you may be required sign a reminder of your obligations.
 
Top