Originally posted by kevcvs57I never said either of those things. I would't call him a traitor and calling someone a "dick" doesn't mean anything (especially in this context).
So as someone who thinks He is a traitor and a dick, what would you like to see Manning get?
I'd say something on the order of 10 years (out in 8 with good behavior) sounds reasonable.
Originally posted by sh76That is still too long. Obama is abusing the Espionage Act.
I never said either of those things. I would't call him a traitor and calling someone a "dick" doesn't mean anything (especially in this context).
I'd say something on the order of 10 years (out in 8 with good behavior) sounds reasonable.
http://theweek.com/article/index/246029/is-obama-abusing-the-espionage-act
I agree with Kevin Zeese on this.
http://www.popularresistance.org/manning-verdict-risks-freedom-of-the-press-if-the-people-do-not-act/
Originally posted by sh76No you didn't did you, sorry about that, 10 sounds reasonable to me to, my worry is a draconian sentence would deter future whistleblowers who may have information about the military or their political masters that the American people need to know.
I never said either of those things. I would't call him a traitor and calling someone a "dick" doesn't mean anything (especially in this context).
I'd say something on the order of 10 years (out in 8 with good behavior) sounds reasonable.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperHe would be murdered to look like a suicide first. You have been brainwashed by the military.
When in reality he will be tried in a Federal court by a jury and have every fancy attorney in the country (that he won't even have to pay for) chomping at the bit to represent him.
Milosevic was murdered before he could defend himself because he had a decent chance at defending himself. The empire didn't want his views to be heard. People like him always conveniently die in prison or are never allowed to be heard.
Have you heard from Manuel (CIA) Noriega lately? You never will!
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper on page 1It's not implausible. In the UK people who work for Post Office Counters used to have to sign the Official Secrets Act in case anything restricted came through. This means that in the U.K. there are huge numbers of people who have signed the official secrets act, but don't have any real access to information. There's a guy in the pub who used to work in the Ministry of Defence and his job involved record keeping - he had access to more secret information than you can shake a stick at. I'm sure that the same applies in the U.S. - you have plenty of people who have clearance for minimal security information, but don't see much, and when they do it's boring. I'm willing to bet they just quoted the biggest number they could just about justify.
This. I'm also curious how they came up with that 4 million number.
Originally posted by kevcvs57There is a right way to whistleblow, and a wrong way to whistleblow. Bradley Manning did it the wrong way. Quite disgusting and illegal what he did. I hope he gets at least 10 years. We need to maintain a deterrent.
Bradley Manning trial has entered the sentencing phase, He faces a possible 136 years in the stockade, what are you hoping for and why?
Originally posted by moon1969Why? is a well informed electorate a dangerous thing, some sort of threat to national security perhaps.
There is a right way to whistleblow, and a wrong way to whistleblow. Bradley Manning did it the wrong way. Quite disgusting and illegal what he did. I hope he gets at least 10 years. We need to maintain a deterrent.
I do not think 10 yrs is excessive for manning but I do not understand why you would want to deter whistleblowers, 'dont shoot the messenger'.
1 edit
Originally posted by kevcvs57"is a well informed electorate a dangerous thing"
Why? is a well informed electorate a dangerous thing, some sort of threat to national security perhaps.
I do not think 10 yrs is excessive for manning but I do not understand why you would want to deter whistleblowers, 'dont shoot the messenger'.
Just one of many examples of exceptions; I don't think the electorate needs to be "well informed" about local nationals who work with the United States at great risk to themselves and their families.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI find it highly improbable.
It's not implausible. In the UK people who work for Post Office Counters used to have to sign the Official Secrets Act in case anything restricted came through. This means that in the U.K. there are huge numbers of people who have signed the official secrets act, but don't have any real access to information. There's a guy in the pub who used to work ...[text shortened]... g. I'm willing to bet they just quoted the biggest number they could just about justify.
4 million is about twice the size of the entire US military, to include active, reserve and national guard.
Only a very small percent of the US military has access to SIPRNET.
Also, signing an "offical secrets act" won't grant you access. You need both a TS clearance and a "need to know" before you can have access.
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe reason we have such a hard time communicating is because I'm not some disillusion nutcase conspiracy theorists who watches too much television.
He would be murdered to look like a suicide first. You have been brainwashed by the military.
Milosevic was murdered before he could defend himself because he had a decent chance at defending himself. The empire didn't want his views to be heard. People like him always conveniently die in prison or are never allowed to be heard.
Have you heard from Manuel (CIA) Noriega lately? You never will!
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperWell then bradley manning should be punished for that, (if it is true) but why would you want to deter future whistleblowers who may have information that you do need to know. should'nt each whistleblower be judged on the merits of the information they are releasing rather than just a blanket bad press for them all.
"is a well informed electorate a dangerous thing"
Just one of many examples of exceptions; I don't think the electorate needs to be "well informed" about nationals who work with the United States at great risk to themselves and their families.
Originally posted by kevcvs57I want to deter whistleblowers from whistleblowing the wrong way and illegally.
Why? is a well informed electorate a dangerous thing, some sort of threat to national security perhaps.
I do not think 10 yrs is excessive for manning but I do not understand why you would want to deter whistleblowers, 'dont shoot the messenger'.
A well-informed enemy can cause loss of American life.