• 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!

Judge refuses to drop charges in Manning case

Is that what you think he did?
lol :doh
Yes its exactly what he did and various information on how our government conducts business with other countries.

:naughty
A Republic.
Uhh you do realize you can be a democracy and a republic at the same time. To people seriously not know what a republic is? We are a democratic republic. We use representative democracy and elect representatives for us to conduct governmental work.
 
He also violated an agreement mandating that classified information such as these documents never be released to foreign and outside sources as a prerequisite for accessing such information. We can argue about the merit of his intentions, but that doesn't change the fact that he allegedly violated military law.

It's technologically impossible to put out any information only domestically. All news is international news now. It is a distinction that needs to be changed.
 
Really what part of this is treasonous? Releasing various information about crimes? And how our government conducts business with other countries? Really sounds like he did some damaging acts there.... Didnt know that was treasonous. You know releasing information to the people. You know "we the people"?

Who knows maybe im just a "twisted information" because i think having a open government is a good thing.

While treasonous is a stretch, if the charges against him are true he is guilty of a number of very serious crimes. There are in place procedures to follow if you beleive material is classified for inapropriate reasons. There are whistleblower programs open to the military. Releasing documents on his own judgement is illegal, and if he is found to have done that, he will probably spend time outside a prison again, and rightly so.

One of the things that makes this a great country is we have laws, laws to protect us as individuals, and laws to protect us as a society. Manning allegedly chose to break those laws, and if found guilty will pay the penalty for doing so. This is just and proper. Whether you think the material he released should have been classified or not is irrelevant. It was classified. Whether you want some imaginary "open government" utopian ideal that will never happen or not is irrelevant. The law is the law, and it is the duty of the government (of we the people) to uphold and defend that law.
 
He shouldn't have released the info. Treason is a terrible accusation. Up to the military court to decide, of course, but it's not inapplicable here.
 
I also do not see what he did as treasonous, illegal certainly, but not treasonous. There is a difference in what he did and, say, secretly slipping the information to the Chinese. I don't think he deserves life in prison. Had he been more selective in what he released I would even say he should get time served. But he leaked information he hadn't even vetted. That deserves a longer sentence in my book. I am the kind of person who think intent should matter in sentencing though, so I will be disappointed if he gets life. But he knew the risk he was taking.
 
He leaked information to someone that was not an American. I might have had an inkling of sympathy for him if he had given the info to an American. But he didn't. He gave the info to a foreign national. That is what makes him a traitor.
 
Yes its exactly what he did and various information on how our government conducts business with other countries.
No that is not exactly what he did.
What he did was violate law by releasing information that he thought would put him in the good grace of others.
What he did was violate the law.
He definitely did not expose any crimes and what he released only showed how the government acted in specific instances.
Do you somehow think that the way they acted has been changed by his release? lol


Uhh you do realize you can be a democracy and a republic at the same time. To people seriously not know what a republic is? We are a democratic republic. We use representative democracy and elect representatives for us to conduct governmental work.
Obviously people do not know what the US is since they have to be schooled.
So listen up.

A Republic entails certain aspects of democracy, but it is not a Democracy.
Even with those aspects of democracy, we are still a Republic.

We are a Republic, and were meant to be a Republic.
And a Republic for good reasons.

Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, [...]

This clause, sometimes referred to as the Guarantee Clause, has historically been a part of the debate about the rights of citizens vis-a-vis state governments. The Guarantee Clause mandates that all U.S. states must be grounded in republican principles, such as consent of the governed.

The Constitution does not explain what exactly constitutes a republican government. However, the Federalist Papers give us an insight as to the intent of the Founders. A republican form of government is distinguished from a pure democracy, which the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid; as James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10, "Hence it is that such [pure] democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."​

Article Four of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Even our Pledge reiterates that we are a Republic.





Words have specific definitions. It is always wise to learn them.
And not try and change them to what you want them to mean.
 
Put 'em in a cell and weld the door shut. Push his food through a slot and let nature take it's course.
 
Put 'em in a cell and weld the door shut. Push his food through a slot and let nature take it's course.

Thats the lightly outcome. He's clearly guilty on most of the charges, be interested in the approach the prosecution is taking for the Aiding the Enemy charge (the most serious). Even if that doesn't stand, he's likely going to be locked up a for a really long time. I see him being made an example of. I'd like to see some hard labor thrown onto the sentence as well. On top of that, doubt he'll be the most popular guy in the military penal system either.
 
Read more @: Judge refuses to drop charges in Manning case - Americas - Al Jazeera English

This information is vital to democracy. Secrecy is not good for democracy, its not good for the voters decisions. Will we punish all Whistleblowers now?

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?

[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]


This is good news.It means the judges is not listening to conspiracy-tards, socialist anti-American trash and other loons. That rat traitor should fave the firing squad. A soldier as far as I know has no authority to declassify info nor did he have any business releasing any classified info. If the military doesn't throw the book at him then this will encourage other traitors in the military.
 
Last edited:
Thats the lightly outcome. He's clearly guilty on most of the charges, be interested in the approach the prosecution is taking for the Aiding the Enemy charge (the most serious). Even if that doesn't stand, he's likely going to be locked up a for a really long time. I see him being made an example of. I'd like to see some hard labor thrown onto the sentence as well. On top of that, doubt he'll be the most popular guy in the military penal system either.

I hadn't thought of that. No, I can't see him being the most popular guy on his cell block either.
 
Did anyone actually read any of those cables? There was too much information. Even the media skim read through most of it, and the few things that they hilighted wouldn't have even been read by the general public, supposing that they could even find them.

I would like for someone to post a link to the most damaging of the cables that the media brought to light. Everything that I've seen so far has been pretty tame.
 
Did anyone actually read any of those cables? There was too much information. Even the media skim read through most of it, and the few things that they hilighted wouldn't have even been read by the general public, supposing that they could even find them.

I would like for someone to post a link to the most damaging of the cables that the media brought to light. Everything that I've seen so far has been pretty tame.

What is contained in the cables is actually somewhat irrelevant. It is not what was in them, but the fact that he choose to give themk to some one who did not have clearance. If I hold up a gas station at gunpoint and there is only 5 bucks in the regester, that does not change the fact that I held up a gas station at gunpoint.
 
No that is not exactly what he did.
What he did was violate law by releasing information that he thought would put him in the good grace of others.
What he did was violate the law.
He definitely did not expose any crimes and what he released only showed how the government acted in specific instances.
Task Force 373
Afghanistan war logs: Task Force 373

Collateral Murder - Wikileaks - Iraq - YouTube

Ignoring torture: Iraq war logs: secret files show how US ignored torture | World news | The Guardian


Do you somehow think that the way they acted has been changed by his release? lol
What?
Who is they?




Obviously people do not know what the US is since they have to be schooled.
So listen up.
Ok master.

A Republic entails certain aspects of democracy, but it is not a Democracy.
D? d?
Whats the differnce?

Even with those aspects of democracy, we are still a Republic.
We are a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. You can be a ****ing republic and a democracy at the same time.

We are a Republic, and were meant to be a Republic.
And a Republic for good reasons.
Yes we are a republic but we also practice REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.

Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, [...]

This clause, sometimes referred to as the Guarantee Clause, has historically been a part of the debate about the rights of citizens vis-a-vis state governments. The Guarantee Clause mandates that all U.S. states must be grounded in republican principles, such as consent of the governed.

The Constitution does not explain what exactly constitutes a republican government. However, the Federalist Papers give us an insight as to the intent of the Founders. A republican form of government is distinguished from a pure democracy, which the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid; as James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10, "Hence it is that such [pure] democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."​


Article Four of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
that quote from Federalist No 10 is talking about pure democracy. Not representative democracy....

Even our Pledge reiterates that we are a Republic.
Yayyyyy!!! Something your forced to say in school says it so it must be true.
If we are not a democratic republic then who do we elect every few years in our states congresses and for the national congress every few years?





Words have specific definitions. It is always wise to learn them.
And not try and change them to what you want them to mean.
Your right it is: Republic: A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch

 
lol
Meaningless tripe.


Do you somehow think that the way they acted has been changed by his release? lol
What?
Who is they?
Really?
You can't figure out that we were speaking about our Government? Which is the subject from which I quoted you.


Ok master.
Shirley, you jest.


D? d?
Whats the differnce?
I can't believe that you are asking such.
Were you not taught the difference in School.
Were you not able to distinguish the difference in how they both were used?


We are a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. You can be a ****ing republic and a democracy at the same time.
We are a Republic.
A Republic entails certain aspects of democracy, but it is not a Democracy.


Yes we are a republic but we also practice REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.
Which is an aspect of our Republic. Doesn't change the fact that we are a Republic.


that quote from Federalist No 10 is talking about pure democracy. Not representative democracy....
And?
Did anybody say it wasn't?
But way to miss the main gist of the information provided.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,"
United States Constitution


Yayyyyy!!! Something your forced to say in school says it so it must be true.
:doh
It was used as an example that even back then, after our founding, it was understood that we were a Republic.


Your right it is: Republic: A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch

Exactly. A Republic.
Which entails certain aspects of democracy, but not a democracy in itself.

I am happy that it is settled.
 
He leaked information to someone that was not an American. I might have had an inkling of sympathy for him if he had given the info to an American. But he didn't. He gave the info to a foreign national. That is what makes him a traitor.

Treason isn't giving information to foreigners. It's giving information to the enemy. Meaning it's only applicable with nations with whom we are at war, or possibly likely to be at war. And even then, only if released specifically to agents of that country's government. I'd be really surprised if we ever went to war with Australia (Assange is Australian), and WikiLeaks isn't even officially headquartered anywhere, meaning that it is not in any country, and so cannot be representing anyone. Laws about classified documents aside, there is absolutely no way that Manning's actions qualify as treason. That's not what treason is.

And, of course, holding our own democratic government responsible for when it acts against the benefit of its people and then keeps secrets about it... that should be protected. Would anyone here have prosecuted Deep Throat? I think not. I hope not. The same standard applies to Manning.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't call him a traitor because he didn't sell these "secrets" to any particular entity. He released "secrets" involving many countries both friendly and enemies of the state indiscriminately showing a complete disregard for his position in the military and the responsibilities he voluntarily agreed to have. If nothing else he is a criminal who betrayed the trust bestowed in him but did not do it in order to "help" an enemy. He should be punished as a criminal; not a full blown traitor.
 
What is contained in the cables is actually somewhat irrelevant. It is not what was in them, but the fact that he choose to give themk to some one who did not have clearance. If I hold up a gas station at gunpoint and there is only 5 bucks in the regester, that does not change the fact that I held up a gas station at gunpoint.

It would be a better analogy to have robbed a gas station when the register was empty.
 
I wouldn't call him a traitor because he didn't sell these "secrets" to any particular entity.

Why would it matter if he sold the secrets or gave them away?If someone in the US gave nuke plans to the North Koreans he would still be just as much as a traitor as the guy sold nuke plans to the North Koreans.
 
Read more @: Judge refuses to drop charges in Manning case - Americas - Al Jazeera English

This information is vital to democracy. Secrecy is not good for democracy, its not good for the voters decisions. Will we punish all Whistleblowers now?

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?

Are you saying we should share all the plans for weapons systems and attack/defense plans we have at the Pentagon with our enemies? Sorry, but it is clear a military needs secrets. To protect democracy, we have oversight committees. Manning not only endangered American personnel with his stunt, but his actions probably resulted in some Afghan contacts being killed. We'll know for certain after the trial. I hope he goes away for a long, long time.
 
Why would it matter if he sold the secrets or gave them away?

Because:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall

He did none of these things. He released documents to a neutral source. He didn't adhere to an enemy or give an enemy aid and comfort of any kind.

If someone in the US gave nuke plans to the North Koreans he would still be just as much as a traitor as the guy sold nuke plans to the North Koreans.

That's not what happened here though is it? Good to see you don't lose your hyperbole when making ridiculous comparisons.
 
Why would it matter if he sold the secrets or gave them away?If someone in the US gave nuke plans to the North Koreans he would still be just as much as a traitor as the guy sold nuke plans to the North Koreans.

Agreed. A traitorous act is a traitorous act regardless of the motive.

UCMJ Article 106a—Espionage
(1) Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any entity described in paragraph (2), either directly or indirectly, anything described in paragraph (3) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, except that if the accused is found guilty of an offense that directly concerns (A) nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large scale attack, (B) war plans, (C) communications intelligence or cryptographic information, or (D) any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy, the accused shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
(2) An entity referred to in paragraph (1) is—

(A) a foreign government;
(B) a faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States; or

(C) a representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen of such a government, faction, party, or force.

(3) A thing referred to in paragraph (1) is a document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense.

(b)

(1) No person may be sentenced by court-martial to suffer death for an offense under this section (article) unless—
(A) the m bers of the court-martial unanimously find at least one of the aggravating factors set out in subsection (c); and
(B) the members unanimously determine that any extenuating or mitigating circumstances are substantially outweighed by any aggravating circumstances, including the aggravating factors set out under subsection (c).

(2) Findings under this subsection may be based on— (A) evidence introduced on the issue of guilt or innocence; (B) evidence introduced during the sentencing proceeding; or

(C) all such evidence. (3) The accused shall be given broad latitude to present matters in extenuation and mitigation.
(c) A sentence of death may be adjudged by a court-martial for an offense under this section (article) only if the members unanimously find, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or more of the following aggravating factors:

(1) The accused has been convicted of another offense involving espionage or treason for which either a sentence of death or imprisonment for life was authorized by statute.
(2) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of substantial damage to the national security.

(3) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person.

(4) Any other factor that may be prescribed by the President by regulations under section 836 of this title (Article 36).”
 
Agreed. A traitorous act is a traitorous act regardless of the motive.

UCMJ Article 106a—Espionage

(1) Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any entity described in paragraph (2), either directly or indirectly, anything described in paragraph (3) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, except that if the accused is found guilty of an offense that directly concerns (A) nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large scale attack, (B) war plans, (C) communications intelligence or cryptographic information, or (D) any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy, the accused shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
(2) An entity referred to in paragraph (1) is—

(A) a foreign government;
(B) a faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States; or

(C) a representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen of such a government, faction, party, or force.


(3) A thing referred to in paragraph (1) is a document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense.

(b)

(1) No person may be sentenced by court-martial to suffer death for an offense under this section (article) unless—
(A) the m bers of the court-martial unanimously find at least one of the aggravating factors set out in subsection (c); and
(B) the members unanimously determine that any extenuating or mitigating circumstances are substantially outweighed by any aggravating circumstances, including the aggravating factors set out under subsection (c).

(2) Findings under this subsection may be based on— (A) evidence introduced on the issue of guilt or innocence; (B) evidence introduced during the sentencing proceeding; or

(C) all such evidence. (3) The accused shall be given broad latitude to present matters in extenuation and mitigation.
(c) A sentence of death may be adjudged by a court-martial for an offense under this section (article) only if the members unanimously find, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or more of the following aggravating factors:

(1) The accused has been convicted of another offense involving espionage or treason for which either a sentence of death or imprisonment for life was authorized by statute.
(2) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of substantial damage to the national security.

(3) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person.

(4) Any other factor that may be prescribed by the President by regulations under section 836 of this title (Article 36).”

Under which of those would WikiLeaks fall?
 
Under which of those would WikiLeaks fall?

Paragraph 1.B, C and D. Without knowing exactly what Manning released I cannot tell for sure, but from has been said about it, if true, would qualify under all of those.
 
Back
Top Bottom