• 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 sentenced to 35 years.[W:123]

Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

That disgraceful dirty fact isn't a secret. The Japanese protest every young girl rape. demand the offending sailor/marine be turned over and are rebuffed.

Been going on waaaay before your 'social engineering' so quit blaming it for everything.

Status of forces is no secret.

I do note you have dropped any debate and just fell back to your 'alamo' social engineering position... :roll:


.

You hiding behind the progressive label don't want to go any further on this dirty little secret that has been going on Okinawa for almost 60 years.

The Department of the Navy and the Navy and Marine Corps couldn't take care of the problem probably because it would be unconstitutional.

I'm sure you noticed that there's little problem with the airmen stationed over at Kadena AFB or the Marines at the MCAS Futenma. So who exactly are these rapist ?

What happens on the Rock stays on the Rock. It's a dirty little secret.
 
Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

No, it didn't, and that was one of the things the prosecution could not provide a single example of. Shame on you for getting caught up in propaganda and flag waving when the worst that was done to you was educating you on what your government was doing and not telling you like double taps, killing civilians, and killing children.

You are confused. What they couldn't prove is that he intentionally aided the enemy. He did endanger American and allied lives through the intentional release of classified information. Which I am certain you have no capacity of understanding.
 
Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

Treason.

He took an oath to safeguard the classified information he had access to. Breaking that oath is illegal...and treason.

Sounds debatable, but assuming the trial was honest, he was found guilty, at least on lesser charges...

He didn't "blow the whistle" he compromised national security.



Yes, you've missed the facts.

Well, he at least handled it the wrong way, but regardless, it's dangerous to blow the whistle these days.
 
Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

Sounds debatable, but assuming the trial was honest, he was found guilty, at least on lesser charges...

It would only sound debatable to someone that doesn't understand the laws behind safegaurding classified information or in having a security clearance.

Well, he at least handled it the wrong way, but regardless, it's dangerous to blow the whistle these days.

It's dangerous to commit treason in any days.
 
Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

You are confused. What they couldn't prove is that he intentionally aided the enemy. He did endanger American and allied lives through the intentional release of classified information. Which I am certain you have no capacity of understanding.

No, they could not show a single instance of harm when asked to do so during his sentencing. They had absolutely no evidence any person was harmed or put in danger due to the revalations, and it has been years, and I am sure they have been looking for something to blame him for. You are completely wrong. You are however correct in that I do lack the understanding that would lead me to a wrong conclusion like yours. I am not bothered by being right and not understanding your vindictive hatred of manning.
 
Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

No, they could not show a single instance of harm when asked to do so during his sentencing. They had absolutely no evidence any person was harmed or put in danger due to the revalations, and it has been years, and I am sure they have been looking for something to blame him for. You are completely wrong. You are however correct in that I do lack the understanding that would lead me to a wrong conclusion like yours. I am not bothered by being right and not understanding your vindictive hatred of manning.

You are showing a complete lack of understanding all around. You are confusing "aiding the enemy" with endangering lives. You also have no understanding of classified material and the reason these laws exist at all. You should just back away from this discussion, you look foolish.
 
Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

No, they could not show a single instance of harm when asked to do so during his sentencing. They had absolutely no evidence any person was harmed or put in danger due to the revalations, and it has been years, and I am sure they have been looking for something to blame him for. You are completely wrong. You are however correct in that I do lack the understanding that would lead me to a wrong conclusion like yours. I am not bothered by being right and not understanding your vindictive hatred of manning.

They didn't present it because they didn't feel it was needed during the hearing/would have been contentious, because everyone has a different definition of 'harm'.
 
Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

You are showing a complete lack of understanding all around. You are confusing "aiding the enemy" with endangering lives. You also have no understanding of classified material and the reason these laws exist at all. You should just back away from this discussion, you look foolish.

oh, you want to use something vague and unqualified. I endangered some lives today when I drove down to the store. I might have had an accident and killed people, so i guess i deserve 35 years in prison for existing like everyone else. For all that supposed danger which you cannot quantify you are admitting there is zero actual damage. It is dangerous for a magician to eat fire, that does not mean they hurt themselves every time they do it.
 
Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

oh, you want to use something vague and unqualified. I endangered some lives today when I drove down to the store. I might have had an accident and killed people, so i guess i deserve 35 years in prison for existing like everyone else. For all that supposed danger which you cannot quantify you are admitting there is zero actual damage. It is dangerous for a magician to eat fire, that does not mean they hurt themselves every time they do it.

Oh, there was absolutely damage. That goes without question.
 
Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

oh, you want to use something vague and unqualified. I endangered some lives today when I drove down to the store. I might have had an accident and killed people, so i guess i deserve 35 years in prison for existing like everyone else. For all that supposed danger which you cannot quantify you are admitting there is zero actual damage. It is dangerous for a magician to eat fire, that does not mean they hurt themselves every time they do it.

No, it's not vague and unqualified. It's very real, and you would have to understand why things are classified to begin with to understand it. You certainly don't.
 
Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

They didn't present it because they didn't feel it was needed during the hearing/would have been contentious, because everyone has a different definition of 'harm'.

That is not true, they did not present it during his sentencing when asked because they had none. They were asked, and there is a proper procedural time to bring up the consequences of the crime when the judge is considering sentencing and they could not provide one instance where mannings leaks had caused any quantifiable damage. They could not show one death attributed to him. they could not show any money loss attributed to him. They could not show any damage at all.
 
Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

Oh, there was absolutely damage. That goes without question.

then why was there no presentation of any of that at his sentencing? yes, i understand they decided not to present it at trial, but at sentencing there is a point where it is part of process to bring up the effects of the criome committed when evaluating punishment.
 
Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

No, it's not vague and unqualified. It's very real, and you would have to understand why things are classified to begin with to understand it. You certainly don't.

No, it is vague and unqualified. A qualified and specific thing wiould been for them to be able to say because of him the terrorists made so and so attack, or did some specific thing. What you are saying is there was some danger and you do not really know where it is or what it does but it is out there.
 
Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

That is not true, they did not present it during his sentencing when asked because they had none.They were asked, and there is a proper procedural time to bring up the consequences of the crime when the judge is considering sentencing and they could not provide one instance where mannings leaks had caused any quantifiable damage. They could not show one death attributed to him. they could not show any money loss attributed to him. They could not show any damage at all.

They didn't show any. There's a difference.
 
Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

then why was there no presentation of any of that at his sentencing?

Because they felt the juice was not worth the squeeze.

yes, i understand they decided not to present it at trial, but at sentencing there is a point where it is part of process to bring up the effects of the criome committed when evaluating punishment.

And they didn't want to bring further controversy to the issue. They didn't want any doubt so they focused on that which is quantifiable.

If you think partner nations were happy with diplomatic cables being leaked (sometimes regarding things they shared with the US in confidence), you're crazy. They were unhappy. A nation becoming unhappy with another is damaging for the nation that had the leak.
 
Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

They didn't show any. There's a difference.

Oh, so there was something you claim. Ok, please do tell us who was killed as a result of these leaks. Tell us what missions were stopped because of this. please do show us how the terrorist got one up on us using his leaks and be specific about the event.
 
Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

No, it is vague and unqualified. A qualified and specific thing wiould been for them to be able to say because of him the terrorists made so and so attack, or did some specific thing. What you are saying is there was some danger and you do not really know where it is or what it does but it is out there.

No it isn't. Classified information is classified for it's potential danger to the US and it's citizens. The very essence of it is dangerous to human lives. You simply do not understand what you are talking about.
 
Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

Oh, so there was something you claim. Ok, please do tell us who was killed as a result of these leaks. Tell us what missions were stopped because of this. please do show us how the terrorist got one up on us using his leaks and be specific about the event.

Wouldn't that be classified? If I knew it, would I share it here?

Anyway, I just posted what damage was done by his leaks. Like the bare minimum amount. It's there and it's incontrovertible.
 
Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

No it isn't. Classified information is classified for it's potential danger to the US and it's citizens. The very essence of it is dangerous to human lives. You simply do not understand what you are talking about.

the other people are not human ?
 
Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

Because they felt the juice was not worth the squeeze.



And they didn't want to bring further controversy to the issue. They didn't want any doubt so they focused on that which is quantifiable.

If you think partner nations were happy with diplomatic cables being leaked (sometimes regarding things they shared with the US in confidence), you're crazy. They were unhappy. A nation becoming unhappy with another is damaging for the nation that had the leak.

You are referring to the same prosecutors who were seeking an aiding the enemy conviction, and many more years of punishment? Those prosecutors decided to be lenient despite always asking for more strict punishment. You insult me with that. You really thought that lie was going to float by me? Am I really that stupid that you thought you could use that BS on me?

Now i will look up at the sky and whistle.
 
Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

No it isn't. Classified information is classified for it's potential danger to the US and it's citizens. The very essence of it is dangerous to human lives. You simply do not understand what you are talking about.


I do not understand it because it makes no sense.
 
Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

I do not understand it because it makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense, and that is not why you do not understand it.
 
Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

You are referring to the same prosecutors who were seeking an aiding the enemy conviction, and many more years of punishment?

Yep.

Those prosecutors decided to be lenient despite always asking for more strict punishment.

No. They tried to make the most compelling case for the sentence and not risk it devolving into subjectivity.

You insult me with that.

Calm down.

You really thought that lie was going to float by me? Am I really that stupid that you thought you could use that BS on me?

lol what?

Now i will look up at the sky and whistle.

I should hope so, because I just told you how Manning incontrovertibly harmed the US and you ignored it. At least now I know why. What does the cloud look like up there? Do you see a puppy dog?
 
Re: Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years.

Wouldn't that be classified? If I knew it, would I share it here?

Anyway, I just posted what damage was done by his leaks. Like the bare minimum amount. It's there and it's incontrovertible.

Oh well I know but I am not going to tell you. I remember that argument from elementary school. You made the claim, now tell us what the damage was that you think was so obvious. If it is obvious it is not a secret and you can point to it specifically. if it is vague and obscured then we do not know what that is.
 
Back
Top Bottom