Bradley Manning sentence

Originally posted by empovsun
i get that, but if we have pardoned people in the past for these kinds of whistle blowing actions, then what is different now? why can't we let this one go? for the size of the leak? if you are arguing about the size of the leak, then shouldn't we state that those files were not that secret? they were low level documents. as you or kilgore said: they were a ...[text shortened]... but their actions compared to the governments actions paint a scary picture for our future...

Pardon him on what grounds?

Do you know what to happens a Soldier who just accidentally loses one small bit of classified material? At a minimum 45 days barracks restriction (house arrest), 45 days extra duty (work until midnight, no days off), loss of a full month pay, loss of rank, and likely kicked out of the Army. That's just if you inadvertently lose something sensitive or classified because you mishandle it.

Manning carried out the most massive leak of classified information in history on purpose. He knowingly put many lives (American and others) at risk. In fact, he got people killed. Why the hell should he be pardoned?

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
That video was one of 750,000 classified documents he leaked. For simplicity I already leads lets only punish him for the other 749,999.

you have still failed to state if you think it is in the public interest that US atrocities, such as those perpetrated in Iraq should be revealed and made public.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Which, apparently is zero sympathy considering you want to let Manning go even after his illegal actions got people killed.

I have not said that he should be let go, in fact, I have not commented at all upon his sentence, as for attempting to make it a matter of legality, one can ask the rather pertinent question as to the legality of the entire invasion, what was it again, weapons of mass destruction, woa, how many did you find? I think a rather more telling question to ask is, what was your oil doing under that Iraqi sand?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you have still failed to state if you think it is in the public interest that US atrocities, such as those perpetrated in Iraq should be revealed and made public.

Start a thread about it and we can talk about that. The fact is he did not ONLY release the helicopter video. If he did that's what we'd be talking about.

So even (IF) I thought he was right to release that video, I still want him punished for the other 750,000 documents he released without even knowing the content.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have not said that he should be let go, in fact, I have not commented at all upon his sentence, as for attempting to make it a matter of legality, one can ask the rather pertinent question as to the legality of the entire invasion, what was it again, weapons of mass destruction, woa, how many did you find? I think a rather more telling question to ask is, what was your oil doing under that Iraqi sand?

Oh, my bad. Maybe I was completely wrong. So you don't think he should be let go?

Start a thread about the legality of the invasion then. Red herrings abounds.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Why the hell should he be pardoned?

because he informed the american people of the wrong doings of the iraq war. an unjustified war that started off about trying to poison one of our senators. remember that nonsense?

the entire iraq war is unjustified. that is why he should be pardoned because he shouldn't have been there, in the first place.

Originally posted by empovsun
because he informed the american people of the wrong doings of the iraq war. an unjustified war that started off about trying to poison one of our senators. remember that nonsense?

the entire iraq war is unjustified. that is why he should be pardoned because he shouldn't have been there, in the first place.

That's debatable, but for the sake of argument let's remove the one or two items that were controversial.

On what basis does he get a pass for the remaining 749,998 documents?

I respectfully disagree with your assertion that Soldiers and civilians entrusted with classified information should use their access to push political and ideological agendas.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
That's debatable, but for the sake of argument let's remove the one or two items that were controversial.

On what basis does he get a pass for the remaining 749,998 documents?

I respectfully disagree with your assertion that Soldiers and civilians entrusted with classified information should use their access to push political and ideological agendas.

ok, fair enough. however, i will note that manning didn't mention anything political in the tribunal...he is a purely naive idealist. i certainly do not agree with everything he has done, or said, but i believe he deserves my respect, at least.

the other documents were low level ones. what i hate about the MSM is that they try to pass it off as MASSIVE TREASON OF THE HIGHEST ORDER OMG, or whatever narrative they were given to read. what happened here wasn't as big of a deal, as his prosecutors tried to paint. my only line of reason, when it comes to this matter, is looking back at the pentagon papers. sure, it was a lighter load than this leak, but it contained many high security documents, and if manning did that one has to wonder if he would have gotten the death penalty (by today's standards).

my only question is:
what is a higher offense - to leak a TON of low level documents, or leaking a few high level documents?

Originally posted by empovsun
ok, fair enough. however, i will note that manning didn't mention anything political in the tribunal...he is a purely naive idealist. i certainly do not agree with everything he has done, or said, but i believe he deserves my respect, at least.

the other documents were low level ones. what i hate about the MSM is that they try to pass it off as MASSIVE ...[text shortened]... higher offense - to leak a TON of low level documents, or leaking a few high level documents?

No, they were NOT "low level" documents. State Department wires are not "low level" documents. Information about local nationals working with US forces are not "low level" documents. In fact, NOTHING marked Secret is a "low level" document. Those "low level" documents got people killed.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
No, they were NOT "low level" documents. State Department wires are not "low level" documents. Information about local nationals working with US forces are not "low level" documents. In fact, NOTHING marked Secret is a "low level" document. Those "low level" documents got people killed.

Just out of interest, what is the disparity between the number of people killed as a consequence of Mannings actions in comparison to the number of persons killed by the US military, after all, trying to make a justification on the basis of number of persons killed as a direct consequence of certain actions is adhering to your own line of reasoning. 'Many people', how many is 'many people', in comparison?

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Oh, my bad. Maybe I was completely wrong. So you don't think he should be let go?

Start a thread about the legality of the invasion then. Red herrings abounds.

I think he should be made a hero, knighted by the queen of England and buried in Westminster abbey after his death, Sir Bradley, its Bush and all the warmongers that are the real daemons, blasting tin cans with sawn off shot guns!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Just out of interest, what is the disparity between the number of people killed as a consequence of Mannings actions in comparison to the number of persons killed by the US military, after all, trying to make a justification on on the basis of number of persons killed as a direct consequence of certain actions is adhering to your own line of reasoning. 'Many people', how many is 'many people', in comparison?

Irrevelant to the Manning case.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Irrevelant to the Manning case.

hardly, its after all, its the very line of reasoning that you yourself initiated, he deserves what he gets because people were killed, 'many people', were your exact words, how many is ,'many people' ? Not only that he was found NOT GUILTY of aiding the enemy in a court of Law, in direct contrast to your assertion that he did.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
No, they were NOT "low level" documents. State Department wires are not "low level" documents. Information about local nationals working with US forces are not "low level" documents. In fact, NOTHING marked Secret is a "low level" document. Those "low level" documents got people killed.

ill have to look into the type of documents that were leaked. i read it sometime last year, and its hard to retrace your tracks that far

could you please stop saying "people". it was a person. singular.
do you not respect the research behind the "damage" manning did? retired Brig. Gen. Robert Carr testified about the work that was done by his information release task force. a 125-person group that "operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week" at a cost of $6.2 million. all to establish the harm done by manning. guess what he said at the tribunal:

"he had never heard that a source named in the afghan war logs was killed"

never, he says. the man that lead the investigation about all the "damage" manning did said he found nothing. after three years!

here's another quote from robert gates who was the former secretary of defense:

"the rhetoric about the supposed harm caused by manning was 'fairly significantly overwrought'"

the narrative of all the harm manning has done, wasn't proven by anyone. not even by the people that wanted to find something.