Bradley Manning could face death: For what?

Originally posted by EJ1988

Originally posted by nonnez
reply to post by backinblack

 

I already know the philosophy you come from, little point in even discussing things with you as you will always hate America, Americans, and all we stand for.

Bye, bye

What is it then that all you americans stand for?


2nd line

We stand for different things as all humans across the world do. Some even "stand" for bad things as the haters point out but this does not make all Americans bad or all of America bad unless one simply hates America and Americans for the sake of hating them. There are some . . . maybe you're one of them . . . that would hate America even if we were to pull all our interests within our borders. They would hate America simply because we still exist upon the face of this Earth, they would still seek to destroy it.

Oh, BTW . . . America should be capitalized . . . I am sure that you just overlooked it.

reply to post by laslidealist


You, like the others, seem to miss the point I am trying to make, you are blinded by your love of Manning and the like. I have NEVER said that wrongs should not be righted or that atrocities should not be punished. And yes, Virginia, there is evil in this world . . . because . . . there are human beings in this world. BUT, this does NOT give the average little man like Manning the right to go digging in Classified information, no doubt quickly and recklessly downloading all sorts of material that he did not have time to properly analyze . . . and then . . . release it to some foreign organization trusting that they would properly handle sensitive material. Pvt. manning should have, if anything, contacted a US senator, State representative, Judge, Etc. not some Australian publisher that is no doubt out to make a buck and who is hostile toward America in the first place.

However you wish to portray Manning, he broke the law, he betrayed his people and he did not care who or what was harmed to do it . . . he is a traitor, traitor, traitor.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by nonnez

 

So none of those thousands of people who had access to these cables reported this before? Either they did and they were locked up in a dungeon or they didn't and they all were accomplices. There goes your theory of 'proper channels' down the drain.

No, no, hopefully they never went poking into areas that they had no right to be in. But if they did and they divulged American secrets to a foreign national then, YES, they should be prosecuted as a SPY, traitor, what-have-you, to the full extent of the law and their ass thrown in prison. Not all secrets are good ones but nations do have need to keep things secret . . . if Manning's were allowed to go unpunished . . . all secrecy would be destroyed and no doubt nations and their people as well.

reply to post by RustyShakleford92


Yeah i guess it is illegal to expose what is illegal.

The government say that what Wiki-leaks is posting is false. Then why should this guy face the death penalty?

If he is charged with this. Then the government has been telling everyone lies. Is that better?

reply to post by spy66


It still falls under Treason. Regardless if it is giving away or selling classified/secret/top secret documents that are true or false.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by spy66

 

It still falls under Treason. Regardless if it is giving away or selling classified/secret/top secret documents that are true or false.

Then the question becomes; Is it immoral by death to tell the truth about something illegal even though there are rules against it?

Question; Do you support this charge? Because if you do you also support immoral activities.

Is it moral for a government to charge someone for doing something illegal; when the government commits a crime?

Can the government really cover its own ass with a law of treason every time It commits a crime and is exposed?

reply to post by spy66


What he did broke the law.
He falls under not civilian law, but UCMJ.
He knew the penalty for his crimes.
Arguing what he exposed is a different matter all together.

Originally posted by Liquesence
I think some people are missing the larger issue:

Some actually believe that simply because something is "legal" or illegal" that it should preclude the exposure of wrongdoings--and illegal actions, I might add--by the government simply because its "law?" Just because something is "illegal" doesn't make that law right or just. Are some suggesting that it's worse to expose the wrongdoings (illegality) of government than it is for the government to commit said wrongdoings and illegal actions itself and hide it?

As if the government were somehow above or exempt from accountability than the average citizen?

Wow.

If one lets government do what it wants without question and with blind allegiance, one is no better than who he condemns and it quickly contributes to the nation's demise.

Even governments must be held accountable, especially when it acts in its citizens' names.


*shakes head*

No one is saying anything about "blind allegiance," and for the record I do not support the death penalty, largely because I view it's applied arbitrarily. Have enough cash? You too can often get away with murder. Why is it a bad idea to leak diplomatic cables? Being its human nature to talk behind some peoples back; you need to have very clear unabashed discussion's when an ambassador or other member of Government "A" talks about events, people, or a country concerning Government "B". Anyone who has been surrounded by "yes men," or people who don't want to give an administration/congress/boss the facts know that is a disaster just waiting to blow up. Sure, "Whats 'Classified" is often so to avoid embarrassment, but there is a lot more to it then that. Are some things "over classified? Hell, yes. But it's not up to a misguided private or holier then though "whistle blower" to claim "they know whats best". Please... Why? Because what may be "operations or technical, or actionable" activity can be 'buried" in a much larger document. It often is. What overseas official/diplomat, soldier is going to approach a country sometimes with some very useful information, if he/she thinks it may end up on UTube? Recruiting someone to spy FOR YOU against lets say their own country often takes YEARS.

In any relationship with a potential intelligence "asset" trust is the currency. But what drives me nuts is when "sources, methods, and data "expiration dates" are compromised. I can't stand traitors who reveal who's who... (Though in this case I'm thinking more about people like Walker, Hanson, Aims...) But not always. That usually results in someone (and sometimes their family) who dies. Slowly. And I don't believe tactics and plans should be available to unauthorized personal because that can get members of our, or an ally's military and intelligence community killed. Human intelligence is the most Byzantine and time consuming of all types. As far as I know we still can't look down from orbit and read someones mind. Any way, that would make me nervous. You got to get CLOSE. And if someone is burned to further some "noble" agenda? Put them in a little cell, forever. By the way the private won't get the death penalty, nor should he. I can't recall the last time an American traitor was executed. (Maybe the Rosenburgs, who where very minor players by the way)

Originally posted by arbiture

Originally posted by Liquesence
I think some people are missing the larger issue:

Some actually believe that simply because something is "legal" or illegal" that it should preclude the exposure of wrongdoings--and illegal actions, I might add--by the government simply because its "law?" Just because something is "illegal" doesn't make that law right or just. Are some suggesting that it's worse to expose the wrongdoings (illegality) of government than it is for the government to commit said wrongdoings and illegal actions itself and hide it?

As if the government were somehow above or exempt from accountability than the average citizen?

Wow.

If one lets government do what it wants without question and with blind allegiance, one is no better than who he condemns and it quickly contributes to the nation's demise.

Even governments must be held accountable, especially when it acts in its citizens' names.


*shakes head*

No one is saying anything about "blind allegiance," and for the record I do not support the death penalty, largely because I view it's applied arbitrarily. Have enough cash? You too can often get away with murder. Why is it a bad idea to leak diplomatic cables? Being its human nature to talk behind some peoples back; you need to have very clear unabashed discussion's when an ambassador or other member of Government "A" talks about events, people, or a country concerning Government "B". Anyone who has been surrounded by "yes men," or people who don't want to give an administration/congress/boss the facts know that is a disaster just waiting to blow up. Sure, "Whats 'Classified" is often so to avoid embarrassment, but there is a lot more to it then that. Are some things "over classified? Hell, yes. But it's not up to a misguided private or holier then though "whistle blower" to claim "they know whats best". Please... Why? Because what may be "operations or technical, or actionable" activity can be 'buried" in a much larger document. It often is. What overseas official/diplomat, soldier is going to approach a country sometimes with some very useful information, if he/she thinks it may end up on UTube? Recruiting someone to spy FOR YOU against lets say their own country often takes YEARS.

In any relationship with a potential intelligence "asset" trust is the currency. But what drives me nuts is when "sources, methods, and data "expiration dates" are compromised. I can't stand traitors who reveal who's who... (Though in this case I'm thinking more about people like Walker, Hanson, Aims...) But not always. That usually results in someone (and sometimes their family) who dies. Slowly. And I don't believe tactics and plans should be available to unauthorized personal because that can get members of our, or an ally's military and intelligence community killed. Human intelligence is the most Byzantine and time consuming of all types. As far as I know we still can't look down from orbit and read someones mind. Any way, that would make me nervous. You got to get CLOSE. And if someone is burned to further some "noble" agenda? Put them in a little cell, forever. By the way the private won't get the death penalty, nor should he. I can't recall the last time an American traitor was executed. (Maybe the Rosenburgs, who where very minor players by the way)

Define traitor. Define treason. It's simply a convenient legal term, in this case to cover the government's backside when exposed for its illegal actions. It's not about what they did, but the fact that they were exposed for it.

First: I never said anything about "blind allegiance."

Second: What are you talking about? Did you actually read my post? It's the ethical principle behind the actions and the condemnation of said actions, which is a contradictory double standard by those doing the condemning.

"But it's not up to a misguided private or holier then though "whistle blower" to claim "they know whats best""

Who are you to determine who is misguided and who knows best and for whom? Some people are conscionable. Are you familiar with Daniel Ellsberg? There comes a point at which an individual must reconcile what is right and what is wrong within himself and what he has been told (lies), which transcends law or popular opinion. That is the point.

So, what exactly are you going on about, because i have a hard time understanding exactly what you're saying.

I guess technically treason is apply applied, although i do recall someone saying it is a duty to speak against--and correct--the wrongs committed by the government, which is a patriot's duty. He may be technically and legally a traitor, but that is simply a legal definition that overlooks the larger reality.

Simply speaking against the government is also sometimes considered treason in some countries, which is a reason why we declared our independence, so that we would have the right to stand up to the illegal actions of the government. When the government starts outlawing the means by which we expose it, there is a problem in our society.

That's the point: It's not about "legality," because the government can always--and will--TRY to outlaw and suppress those things which call it into question and expose it.

There is a right and a wrong. Laws are not befitting only for the lay citizen while the government is exempt. It might be "illegal" but that means nothing in the larger context.

reply to post by Liquesence


What do you want, a dictionary definition of Treason.
He gave away US Govt secrets during a time of war. Very cut and dry.
He knew what he was doing was criminal. He is even on record I believe while talking to his attorney stating he knew what he did was criminal.

If what he gave way was secrets on US criminal actions is for another debate and does not matter.
2 wrongs do not make a right.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Liquesence

 

What do you want, a dictionary definition of Treason.
He gave away US Govt secrets during a time of war. Very cut and dry.
He knew what he was doing was criminal. He is even on record I believe while talking to his attorney stating he knew what he did was criminal.

If what he gave way was secrets on US criminal actions is for another debate and does not matter.
2 wrongs do not make a right.

And you, sir, miss the ENTIRE point of my original post.

It does matter.



ETA: So, if everyone decided not to act, and did nothing in the face of illegality and injustice, simply because it's "illegal" or treason," what's right and/or wrong, we would be in a sorrier state than we are because of blind indifference.

There is a point at which action is necessary, to at least try to right wrongs (regardless of illegality and consequence).

You people amaze me sometimes.

reply to post by Liquesence


Then he is still guilty of Treason, as it applies to what he did within the federal Govt.

Can you label him a Patriot. Sure I guess.

Originally posted by RustyShakleford92
reply to post by edog11

 

Mr. Manning would already be dead if he pulled this stunt in any other country. What he did was illegal. You do something that is illegal, you pay the consequences. Doesn't matter if you agree with the politics behind it, legal is legal, and illegal is illegal.

Oh boy... the old pseudo-intellectual "in another country" cliche... and you know this because....?

..."any" other country.." huh?, a not-so subtle suggestion America stands out as the one, the only!!.. beacon of virtue, justice & due process (vomits). In the barbaric badlands of lawless UK, Canada, Israel and Iraq Manning, of course, would have been summarily made "dead"... lol..sure thing.

The govt and media said he did it.. "Off with his head!"... not much of a difference between the king and his scribes.

Yea I know, "innocent until proven guilty" is stale "pre-911" thinking that endangers soccer moms, threatens national security more than the Mexican border, and excites radicalized terrorists more than a JDAM on a Muslim funeral .. but Manning is innocent, the 2-party dear leader ruling apparatus has been know to be full of scat, and, oh yeah he's F3'n INNOCENT..

He allegedly exposed how "diplomats" behave like low budget Soprano Lt's while representing the interests of "The American people".. true to gangster mores, "snitches get stitches".. in Mannings case it'll be a coroners signature "Y"..

reply to post by GovtFlu


He is subject to the UCMJ, not civilian based courts.
His crimes is hirer in status due to being a military member.

reply to post by macman



You are still missing the point and not seeing the larger picture.

I never said he wasn't guilty of treason or that he didn't commit a "crime." That is the "law," in regards to the "federal Govt," and i am saying that the "law" isn't necessarily right or just when it is used to protect criminal enterprises and illegal actions. The only thing that was truly "hurt" by the leaking (at this point) was the government simply because of its hypocrisy, two faced deals (with allies), and criminal activities. The government is pissed because it was exposed.

And he certainly is not putting more people in harms way than the worldwide criminal actions of the government he is exposing through reckless foreign policy.

You seem to parroting the "well, that's the law" line of apologism, without realizing that some laws should be broken. I will not repeat what i have said in previous posts because it's all pretty clear; however, i will add this: the patriots, the revolutionaries that help secure our independence from Britain were also considered traitors at the time. And look what they did for us. That was the "law," but they were fighting for a greater cause and against a criminal regime. They were traitors, but the good that they did by "breaking the law" resulted in a presumably freer and better future and state than in which they previously and originally lived.

But, they were simply traitors who knew what they were doing was wrong, huh, and therefore ordinary criminals and enemies of that state. Although technically true simply because of "law," well...

If you can't understand this, then i am sorry and have nothing more to say.

Good night.

reply to post by Liquesence


No, I understand you fully. You want me to fall into the ranks of "Well the law is wrong" and "What he did was right".
He broke the law. Not as a civilian, but as a military member.
Have Patriots and Do Gooders been tried and executed before? Yes.

Is it right that he be executed? If he broke the law in place and that is the punishment, then yes.

I am not a person to be tripped up by Case law and all the nonsense of a defense of "Well I stole to feed my family".
If you can commit the crime, be prepared for the punishment.

In addition, as for the remark of our Founding Fathers being labeled as Traitors, yes you are correct. And if they were caught by the British, they would have been hanged.
That's what they were prepared for.
Mr. Manning should have expected nothing less.

Originally posted by RustyShakleford92
reply to post by edog11

 

Mr. Manning would already be dead if he pulled this stunt in any other country. What he did was illegal. You do something that is illegal, you pay the consequences. Doesn't matter if you agree with the politics behind it, legal is legal, and illegal is illegal.

What the leaders , who are mere employees of the public, are doing is ILLEGAL, TREASON, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, and anyone who brings their crimes to light IS A HERO!!!!!!!

Underscore that to INFINITY AND BEYOND!

This is being said fully believing they are CIA shills, this is a set up, to try and stop information from getting out, and also, to make us think 9/11 was as they said, and we all know it wasn't, and its keystone to their NWO agenda and illegal activities. But absence of proof of that means I must support them full tilt until I know otherwise.

reply to post by nonnez


I am an American, and YOU do not speak for all Americans.

The Government that you are defending is de facto, it is the Rockefeller's and Rothschild's hijacked, democracy gone wild. The Constitutional Republic that our founding fathers fought for died the day that the 14th amendment passed into law, and was then buried 6 feet deep in 1913.

To support the current federal regime is to support usurpers hellbent on removing REAL AMERICANS. This union has been corporatized and departmenalized to the point of utter madness and you come on these boards and defend the real criminals abusing the American people.

Manning was doing his JOB, and because of the fact that it happened to entail divulging the corruption of a rogue government, his life is at stake for it. And like a good sheep, you condemn him.

Also, stop using this fallacy that his actions "put American lives in danger," we never were in danger in the first place, and we were hauled off to war on false pretenses.

You are NOT an American. You are the type who feels patriotic because you got excited about the pretty lights in the sky on the fourth of July.

Mediocrity is not equal to American.

However you wish to portray Manning, he broke the law, he betrayed his people and he did not care who or what was harmed to do it . . . he is a traitor, traitor, traitor.

Funny, I don't feel betrayed by Manning in the least bit.

You can't commit treason against a treasonous government.

Its not possible.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by GovtFlu

 

He is subject to the UCMJ, not civilian based courts.
His crimes is hirer in status due to being a military member.

I didn't mention which court.. he is still innocent.

Wouldn't surprise me if Manning ended up in Fed court one day tho. I'm sure a Kangaroo military court will sentence him to die.. then some politicians pet Federal prosecutor crony being groomed for a higher purpose will yank Manning off death row and file dozens of federal charges.