• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bradley Manning Offers Guilty Pleas

tessaesque said:
And yet he still broke the law because he failed to utilize proper protocol for military whistleblowing....protocol he would have been well aware of as a member of that military.

What I find absolutely disgusting is people who defend those who put us at risk. He didn't know the content of most of those documents. For all he knew, he could have been releasing cables that led to war, attacks on our soil, attacks at our embassies. It is by shear LUCK that his actions didn't result in deaths. Fortunately, our system doesn't care about lucky outcomes and focuses purely on the original illegal action.

Manning deserves to be punished because he broke the law. The fact that you apparently think he's some kind of enlightened hero is rather telling.
Click to expand...

I guess that is also why he deserved to be thrown in isolation for 9 months as well? Because he broke the law?

And, by the way, where is the moral outrage for those who were exposed as war criminals in that apache helicopter video?
 
FinnMacCool said:
I guess that is also why he deserved to be thrown in isolation for 9 months as well? Because he broke the law?

And, by the way, where is the moral outrage for those who were exposed as war criminals in that apache helicopter video?
Click to expand...

This thread isn't about those "exposed war criminals". It is about Bradley Manning.

As for Bradley's treatment in jail....we don't know the circumstances of his placement in solitary. Or at least I don't. Until I know why it was done, I can't say whether it was cruel or inappropriate. If he was a danger to himself or others or was at risk in general population then solitary seems rather logical, doesn't it? Do you know why he was put in solitary? Are you going off the words of foreign bodies who don't actually have access to the records and day-to-days of the prison?
 
tessaesque said:
This thread isn't about those "exposed war criminals". It is about Bradley Manning.

As for Bradley's treatment in jail....we don't know the circumstances of his placement in solitary. Or at least I don't. Until I know why it was done, I can't say whether it was cruel or inappropriate. If he was a danger to himself or others or was at risk in general population then solitary seems rather logical, doesn't it? Do you know why he was put in solitary? Are you going off the words of foreign bodies who don't actually have access to the records and day-to-days of the prison?
Click to expand...

I think the circumstances are suspicious yes, especially considering it was ordered by a three star general.

» Evidence shows three-star general ordered Bradley’s unlawful, brutal treatment Bradley Manning Support Network

Also the war criminals, which you have tellingly put in quotes (obviously you don't believe they were war criminals even though the video obviously shows they were), may not be what this thread is about, but it is certainly relevant if we are going to be discussing bradley manning. because i could also turn it around and say that this thread is not about diplomatic cables.
 
FinnMacCool said:
I think the circumstances are suspicious yes, especially considering it was ordered by a three star general.

» Evidence shows three-star general ordered Bradley’s unlawful, brutal treatment Bradley Manning Support Network

Also the war criminals, which you have tellingly put in quotes (obviously you don't believe they were war criminals even though the video obviously shows they were), may not be what this thread is about, but it is certainly relevant if we are going to be discussing bradley manning. because i could also turn it around and say that this thread is not about diplomatic cables.
Click to expand...


1. Your link is a biased article, so I can't assume it presents factual representation of the situation.
2. I put "war criminal" in quotes because without conviction, they are nothing but people in a video. Have they been convicted?
 
tessaesque said:
1. Your link is a biased article, so I can't assume it presents factual representation of the situation.
2. I put "war criminal" in quotes because without conviction, they are nothing but people in a video. Have they been convicted?
Click to expand...

1. Three-Star General Was Behind Harsh Treatment of Bradley Manning, Defense Alleges | Threat Level | Wired.com

better?

2. You're absolutely right. They have not been convicted. Nor have they been charged. And probably never will be. Why is that? Wish I knew.
 
Bradley Manning is a hero for revealing the crimes of the government, in the same way that Daniel Ellsberg is a hero for revealing the crimes and deception of the government.

This plea strategy might be good, especially considering how UCMJ military trials are nothing but kangaroo courts.

I wish him all the best!
 
HonestJoe said:
Where is the idea that Manning is a whistleblower coming from? He didn't identify specific incidents of wrong-doing and selectively leak information relating to them, he copied data in bulk, much more than he could have personally read, and passed it all to a third party. Even if there was no major harm as a result of any of the information he passed on (which is somewhat disputed I believe), the fact is that there could have been. That's why leaking information like this is illegal.
Click to expand...

You do not understand what a whistleblower is.

Daniel Ellsberg was a whistleblower with the Pentagon Papers. Manning is a whistleblower with Collateral Murder, or whatever the tape was called.

The tape revealed war crimes committed by the gunship crew and their chain of command.
 
Henry David said:
You do not understand what a whistleblower is.

Daniel Ellsberg was a whistleblower with the Pentagon Papers. Manning is a whistleblower with Collateral Murder, or whatever the tape was called.

The tape revealed war crimes committed by the gunship crew and their chain of command.
Click to expand...

But he didn't just release one tape. He also released a whole slew of State Department cables that had absolutely nothing to do with "collateral murder." Most of these documents didn't expose any wrongdoing whatsoever, they were just embarrassing for the State Department and for foreign governments. Just because a document is secret does not necessarily mean it's hiding something nefarious and needs to be exposed to the public.
 
Kandahar said:
But he didn't just release one tape. He also released a whole slew of State Department cables that had absolutely nothing to do with "collateral murder." Most of these documents didn't expose any wrongdoing whatsoever, they were just embarrassing for the State Department and for foreign governments. Just because a document is secret does not necessarily mean it's hiding something nefarious and needs to be exposed to the public.
Click to expand...

I cannot disagree with you on that, but the question is raised, "Why should routine communications at the State Department be classified "Top Secret"? Why should they be classified at all?

If the government can read my email, why should I not be able to read its email?

Even Robert Gates admitted that no harm was done by the Wikileaks and Manning affair, so where's the harm you seem to perceive? Why should a man be sent to prison and tortured for having harmed nobody?
 
Henry David said:
I cannot disagree with you on that, but the question is raised, "Why should routine communications at the State Department be classified "Top Secret"? Why should they be classified at all?
Click to expand...

Because it encourages open communication and candor among government officials. If they thought they were constantly being monitored and anything they said could leak into the public, they might start self-censoring...and this would be a huge disservice to our diplomatic efforts all around the world, which need the most honest and accurate assessments of foreign countries/situations/leaders that our diplomats can offer.

If the government can read my email, why should I not be able to read its email?
Click to expand...

I don't think either of those should be allowed, generally speaking.

Even Robert Gates admitted that no harm was done by the Wikileaks and Manning affair, so where's the harm you seem to perceive?
Click to expand...

Harm is not always easy to perceive...you can't always draw a direct line from the cause to the effect. For one example, the leak exposed Zimbabwean political dissident (now prime minister) Morgan Tsvangiarai for secretly advocating for sanctions against his country, even while he publicly opposed them. Zimbabwe's brutal dictator Robert Mugabe tried to have him impeached and imprisoned when it was discovered. Mugabe ultimately failed in that goal, but who knows what damage it may ultimately do to Zimbabwe's democratic movement.

More indirectly, there's the harm that comes from what I mentioned above: Our diplomats will self-censor if they think their words will become public, which will be very bad for foreign relations because our State Department will have to rely on less-than-candid assessments. Similarly, foreign leaders might be very cautious about what they say to our diplomats if they think that THEY could be embarrassed when their words become public, which will make it harder to reach multilateral agreements and make it more difficult to understand what foreign countries actually want.

Why should a man be sent to prison and tortured for having harmed nobody?
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I think that Manning should only be sentenced to time served and/or just a few more years in prison. His leaks were illegal and they damaged the reputation of the State Department, but I don't think it warrants an especially harsh sentence like life in prison, as some have called for. Partially because (as you stated) the direct harm is pretty hard to pinpoint, but also because of his young age at the time of his crime.
 
Kandahar said:
Because it encourages open communication and candor among government officials. If they thought they were constantly being monitored and anything they said could leak into the public, they might start self-censoring...and this would be a huge disservice to our diplomatic efforts all around the world, which need the most honest and accurate assessments of foreign countries/situations/leaders that our diplomats can offer.



I don't think either of those should be allowed, generally speaking.



Harm is not always easy to perceive...you can't always draw a direct line from the cause to the effect. For one example, the leak exposed Zimbabwean political dissident (now prime minister) Morgan Tsvangiarai for secretly advocating for sanctions against his country, even while he publicly opposed them. Zimbabwe's brutal dictator Robert Mugabe tried to have him impeached and imprisoned when it was discovered. Mugabe ultimately failed in that goal, but who knows what damage it may ultimately do to Zimbabwe's democratic movement.

More indirectly, there's the harm that comes from what I mentioned above: Our diplomats will self-censor if they think their words will become public, which will be very bad for foreign relations because our State Department will have to rely on less-than-candid assessments. Similarly, foreign leaders might be very cautious about what they say to our diplomats if they think that THEY could be embarrassed when their words become public, which will make it harder to reach multilateral agreements and make it more difficult to understand what foreign countries actually want.



For what it's worth, I think that Manning should only be sentenced to time served and/or just a few more years in prison. His leaks were illegal and they damaged the reputation of the State Department, but I don't think it warrants an especially harsh sentence like life in prison, as some have called for. Partially because (as you stated) the direct harm is pretty hard to pinpoint, but also because of his young age at the time of his crime.
Click to expand...

Pardon my cynicism, but at age 65 I am impressed in all the wrong ways by our "diplomatic efforts" around the world. I'm all for good diplomacy, but I just haven't seen any of it since Jimmy Carter left office.

I do recognize the need for privacy in matters of diplomacy, but in this case we're talking about Bradley Manning and what he did.

I'm glad you don't think either should be allowed, but the fact of the matter is that the former has been going on at least since the early days of Dubya's administration. That is getting close to the heart of the matter.

I am happy to read your opinion regarding an appropriate sentence for Manning. :) On that point we agree completely. :peace
 
Henry David said:
You do not understand what a whistleblower is.
Click to expand...
I understand perfectly well and I understand what condescension is too.

If Manning had only released material related to suspected crimes or serious misbehaviour and had at least considered the existing whistle blowing routes or respected media organisations before approaching Wikileaks, you'd have a very good argument. The fact remains that he did not.

He didn't blow the whistle on anything, he released whole batches of data with absolutely zero idea of who would ultimately get acres to it or the potential consequence of it being released. Nobody was killed as a result but people very easily could have been. That is why leaking that kind of information without specific reason is illegal and that is why he is being tried.

If anything, Manning's actions have actually harmed the abilities of true whistleblowers.
 
FinnMacCool said:
I guess that is also why he deserved to be thrown in isolation for 9 months as well? Because he broke the law?

And, by the way, where is the moral outrage for those who were exposed as war criminals in that apache helicopter video?
Click to expand...

A big part of why he is in isolation is for his protection. People are not fond of those who harm their country.
 
Kandahar said:
Because it encourages open communication and candor among government officials.
Click to expand...

It also encourages a secret-culture whereby everything must be classified to be hidden from criticism for this very reason, i.e. "encourag[ing] open communication and candor among government officials."
 
LowDown said:
Well, not your enemies, anyway. The enemies of America on the other hand...
Click to expand...
First off who are "my enemies"? What do you mean by; "Well, not your enemies, anyway"?
Second off.... He sent Al Qaeda, and Iran and various other militant Islamic groups and other Countries intelligence?
 
Redress said:
You base your belief that he is not guilty on what?
Click to expand...

I believe he did nothing wrong. I believe that he simply did what a good journalist did. I believe openness leads to peace and a better democracy.
 
Manning is clearly guilty of leaking information illegally. He could have been given a speedy trial, convicted and sentenced according to rules of our justice system. However, the government has also flagrantly acted in violation of the law. The UCMJ guarantees a right to speedy trial but manning has been imprisoned for nearly two years. The specified remedy in article 10 is dismissal with prejudice. The only real question in whether the courts will actually uphold the law, or whether they will continue to allow torture, murder and imprisonment simply at the whim of the executive branch.
 
HonestJoe said:
I understand perfectly well and I understand what condescension is too.

If Manning had only released material related to suspected crimes or serious misbehaviour and had at least considered the existing whistle blowing routes or respected media organisations before approaching Wikileaks, you'd have a very good argument. The fact remains that he did not.

He didn't blow the whistle on anything, he released whole batches of data with absolutely zero idea of who would ultimately get acres to it or the potential consequence of it being released. Nobody was killed as a result but people very easily could have been. That is why leaking that kind of information without specific reason is illegal and that is why he is being tried.

If anything, Manning's actions have actually harmed the abilities of true whistleblowers.
Click to expand...

Men in positions like Manning and Ellsberg have tactical considerations. They must decide exactly how to blow the whistle--how to get the documents out. Ellsberg had to deal with paper documents, Bradley with digital documents or information, or whatever the appropriate word might be. He chose a Lady Gaga CD cover.

Just speculating on my part, but maybe he just downloaded a huge pile of documents so that the helicopter gunship footage could be included? Speculation means little.

The point is that "respected media organisations" is rather an oxymoron these days. The 'respected media organizations' are sadly mere lapdogs for the government. That is the reason why Wikileaks exists--mainstream media suppresses the truth, ignores the truth, and prints nothing but government propaganda.

Manning's actions have not harmed the abilities of whistleblowers, but an aggressive prosecution by the Obama Just Us Department certainly has. Our great leader and advocate of transparency in government has prosecuted whistleblowers more agressively than his predecessor.

He approved the torture of Manning during that first year. Manning is a classic american hero, revealing the war crimes of his government. The State Department material should never have been classified in the first place, and anybody who has read any of them knows that.

Robert Gates, on the way out of office, finally spoke the truth--no harm done that he was aware of. All these years later, you nor anybody else can identify any harm done by that release.
 
rathi said:
Manning is clearly guilty of leaking information illegally. He could have been given a speedy trial, convicted and sentenced according to rules of our justice system. However, the government has also flagrantly acted in violation of the law. The UCMJ guarantees a right to speedy trial but manning has been imprisoned for nearly two years. The specified remedy in article 10 is dismissal with prejudice. The only real question in whether the courts will actually uphold the law, or whether they will continue to allow torture, murder and imprisonment simply at the whim of the executive branch.
Click to expand...

My cynical but realistic prediction is that the courts will condone ALL the illegal actions of the government in this case.

Ehren Watada found justice, finally, by way of civilian courts. Manning will never get the chance, and the UCMJ will not deliver justice here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom