US judge rules not to drop Manning charge

Northern Light said:

I don't care what the technicalities and semantics are. Manning did the right thing. He exposed many of the realities of the war that the government has been hiding from us, details that would be evident if they would give the press free access to war zones like they used to.



This is inaccurate. Wikileaks sorts through data and releases details which are high profile yet low risk. They don't just summarily take data and give it out to the world. Assange himself has said in many interviews that Wikileaks routinely withholds certain information from release because it could pose a danger to a lot of people.

Assange is right about one thing though, our free press is coming to an end. Western governments are cracking down on information exchange at an alarming rate. The fact that they could cut financial access to Wikileaks through all banking institutions and credit companies just goes to show that freedom of speech no longer exists.

Click to expand...

You are still free to disagree with me, just as I am still free to disagree with you. And I do. Freedom of speech does not extend to posting classified information on the internet, where it can be used to do harm by our nation's... or any nation's... enemies. Espionage, treason, giving aid to the enemy are not constitutionally protected activities.

Northern Light said:

I don't care what the technicalities and semantics are. Manning did the right thing. He exposed many of the realities of the war that the government has been hiding from us, details that would be evident if they would give the press free access to war zones like they used to.



This is inaccurate. Wikileaks sorts through data and releases details which are high profile yet low risk. They don't just summarily take data and give it out to the world. Assange himself has said in many interviews that Wikileaks routinely withholds certain information from release because it could pose a danger to a lot of people.

Assange is right about one thing though, our free press is coming to an end. Western governments are cracking down on information exchange at an alarming rate. The fact that they could cut financial access to Wikileaks through all banking institutions and credit companies just goes to show that freedom of speech no longer exists.

Click to expand...

The technicalities you disagree with are THE LAW. Who the hell are Manning, Asange and Snowden to determine what the US should and should not keep secret- who the F made them the adjudicators of information security?!

The answer: NO ONE

You're freedom of speech stops at the "Classified" stamp!!

greyhat said:

The technicalities you disagree with are THE LAW. Who the hell are Manning, Asange and Snowden to determine what the US should and should not keep secret- who the F made them the adjudicators of information security?!

The answer: NO ONE

You're freedom of speech stops at the "Classified" stamp!!

Click to expand...

So then, if The Law required that every first born be sacrificed at the altar, you would obey it? Would that be what you consider a worthy law, or do you consider all the legislative product to be worthy?

Since when is it wrong in any way to expose the crimes of government, and by what authority?

DiAnna said:

You are still free to disagree with me, just as I am still free to disagree with you. And I do. Freedom of speech does not extend to posting classified information on the internet, where it can be used to do harm by our nation's... or any nation's... enemies. Espionage, treason, giving aid to the enemy are not constitutionally protected activities.

Click to expand...

This isn't a joke type question, but just who is this "enemy" of which you speak? Would that be the Taliban, to whom Colin Powell delivered $40+ million dollars in April of 2001, or perhaps AQ, a creature of our very own CIA?

Since Robert Gates as SecDef is on the record as saying the material Manning released harmed no US soldier in any way, what harm was really done by that release of minimally classified information?

clownboy said:

I disagree of course. In this case it's a simple and straightforward line he learned and agreed to BEFORE he received his classification.

Click to expand...

Exactly! You promise to give or permit access to classified information only to those you know, or reasonably believe, to be cleared to see it and have a need to know. Obviously handing gobs of classified information to Wikileaks or simply leaving it on a public sidewalk are apt to let it fall into "unauthorized" hands.

Henry David said:

So then, if The Law required that every first born be sacrificed at the altar, you would obey it? Would that be what you consider a worthy law, or do you consider all the legislative product to be worthy?

Since when is it wrong in any way to expose the crimes of government, and by what authority?

Click to expand...

That's a stupid question- we live in a much more civilized world...

greyhat said:

That's a stupid question- we live in a much more civilized world...

Click to expand...

Which one is stupid? I asked 3 questions and you have dodged them all, suggesting the answers bother you somehow.

Henry David said:

This isn't a joke type question, but just who is this "enemy" of which you speak? Would that be the Taliban, to whom Colin Powell delivered $40+ million dollars in April of 2001, or perhaps AQ, a creature of our very own CIA?

Since Robert Gates as SecDef is on the record as saying the material Manning released harmed no US soldier in any way, what harm was really done by that release of minimally classified information?

Click to expand...

You obviously do not know what your talking about; after 9-11 we forged alliances with and gave money to The Northern Alliance, a group that was an enemy of the Taliban.

AQ isn't a USA creation, that's conspiracy theory. During the CW we funded anti-soviet "mujahideens".

greyhat said:

You obviously do not know what your talking about; after 9-11 we forged alliances with and gave money to The Northern Alliance, a group that was an enemy of the Taliban.

AQ isn't a USA creation, that's conspiracy theory. During the CW we funded anti-soviet "mujahideens".

Click to expand...

It appears I am not as gullible as you might be. eace

Henry David said:

Which one is stupid? I asked 3 questions and you have dodged them all, suggesting the answers bother you somehow.

Click to expand...

They don't bother me, they're just dumb questions because unlike a Toltec ruler, our government derives its power from We the People. There are reasons why infosec exists and that's why there are laws that Manning swore to uphold- he broke them, is a criminal and will pay heavily for this betrayal.

Henry David said:

It appears I am not as gullible as you might be. eace

Click to expand...

LMFAOL, right...!

greyhat said:

LMFAOL, right...!

Click to expand...

Maybe not as gullible as you seem, and perhaps much more perceptive, eh?

Whereas I am quite skeptical of government stories, you seem to jump onboard any story they advance.

greyhat said:

The technicalities you disagree with are THE LAW. Who the hell are Manning, Asange and Snowden to determine what the US should and should not keep secret- who the F made them the adjudicators of information security?!

The answer: NO ONE

You're freedom of speech stops at the "Classified" stamp!!

Click to expand...

Somewhere in America, a tiny violin is playing. lol

They were men of conscience. I disagree with upholding laws that violate the American Constitutions and dirty the good name of our country. The American People deserved to be told they were being SPIED on by their own government, and the world needed to know the atrocities of our war in the Middle East.

What goes around comes around. If the government is committing bad deeds then it should live in fear that men of conscience will ALWAYS find a way to air their dirty laundry for all to see.

If you have nothing bad to hide then you have nothing to worry about. Sound familiar? It's what Homeland Security tells US regularly.

DiAnna said:

You are still free to disagree with me, just as I am still free to disagree with you. And I do. Freedom of speech does not extend to posting classified information on the internet, where it can be used to do harm by our nation's... or any nation's... enemies. Espionage, treason, giving aid to the enemy are not constitutionally protected activities.

Click to expand...

Info wasn't given to the enemy, it was given to Wikileaks. Wikileaks is not under contract with the U.S. government, and no info was directly given to any enemy.

You can call it espionage all you want but it's not. He wasn't working for a foreign government, he was aiding a non-State actor.

He'll be locked away no doubt, but I think calling Manning a traitor and accusing him of aiding the enemy is delusional. He saw atrocities being committed by the U.S. army that were in violation of UN law, and he aired the dirty laundry, AS ANYONE OF GOOD CONSCIENCE SHOULD. Period.

Bravo NorthernLight! :mrgreen:

Northern Light said:

Somewhere in America, a tiny violin is playing. lol

They were men of conscience. I disagree with upholding laws that violate the American Constitutions and dirty the good name of our country. The American People deserved to be told they were being SPIED on by their own government, and the world needed to know the atrocities of our war in the Middle East.

What goes around comes around. If the government is committing bad deeds then it should live in fear that men of conscience will ALWAYS find a way to air their dirty laundry for all to see.

If you have nothing bad to hide then you have nothing to worry about. Sound familiar? It's what Homeland Security tells US regularly.



Info wasn't given to the enemy, it was given to Wikileaks. Wikileaks is not under contract with the U.S. government, and no info was directly given to any enemy.

You can call it espionage all you want but it's not. He wasn't working for a foreign government, he was aiding a non-State actor.

He'll be locked away no doubt, but I think calling Manning a traitor and accusing him of aiding the enemy is delusional. He saw atrocities being committed by the U.S. army that were in violation of UN law, and he aired the dirty laundry, AS ANYONE OF GOOD CONSCIENCE SHOULD. Period.

Click to expand...

Oh what a fantasy world you live in...LMFAOL

You seem to know so much about this spying and these atrocities; please do enlighten us...oh wait- don't..I've heard am these "big brother" BS already. LOL

I would personally volunteer to throw away they key on Manning and Snowden types.

greyhat said:

Oh what a fantasy world you live in...LMFAOL

You seem to know so much about this spying and these atrocities; please do enlighten us...oh wait- don't..I've heard am these "big brother" BS already. LOL

I would personally volunteer to throw away they key on Manning and Snowden types.

Click to expand...

The footage of U.S. soldiers deliberately targetting civilians from helicopters and then having a jolly laugh about it was something I was personally happy to see exposed.

But just keep dishing out ad homs, it makes you look like a jerk and someone incapable of standing their ground in a debate.

Northern Light said:

The footage of U.S. soldiers deliberately targetting civilians from helicopters and then having a jolly laugh about it was something I was personally happy to see exposed.

But just keep dishing out ad homs, it makes you look like a jerk and someone incapable of standing their ground in a debate.

Click to expand...

Again you don't know what your taking about; the incident in reference is the one that involved a Reuters' crew being fired upon by accident. They were mistaken for insurgents, and yes, the video showed the crew being happy that they had nailed their perceived target; an action that can be understood within the context of the fog of war.

This was a regrettable incident that occurred in error and was not the savage killing you make it out to be. There have been incidents of collateral damage and even rogue soldiers like Sgt Bale; however the latter does not represent an entire military's role in the war. To state otherwise is not only to be ignorant but to be beyond logic.

Manning did not only leak that video, but thousands of classified cables if the State Department amongst other things. All of those documents were classified for a reason- whether you agree with it or not is beyond the point!

Manning will receive the appropriate punishment for his actions under the UCMJ. Fry him!!

greyhat said:

Again you don't know what your taking about; the incident in reference is the one that involved a Reuters' crew being fired upon by accident. They were mistaken for insurgents, and yes, the video showed the crew being happy that they had nailed their perceived target; an action that can be understood within the context of the fog of war.

Click to expand...

I understand the story made up after the fact, and I don't really care. Prior to Desert Storm, the media were allowed into war zones. Why did we stop? Because the public started getting disgusted with what the reality of war looked like. The media ended the Vietnam War. Now we have media blackouts in our campaign zones. How is a democracy supposed to function when we are being kept in the dark of the realities of our violent campaigns?

What is now being called "classified information" used to be readily accessible to war correspondents who were willing to put their lives on the line to relay violent details back to the public. Now? People get called traitors for passing on information that falls under the blackout. It's so unfortunate how within one generation, people like you now jump to apologize for the government because you accept the new rules that are meant to oppress your awareness so that they can in turn manufacture your consent. You roll over like a dog, just like so many others, to defend these rules.

I fully support dissenters who will violate these bunk, anti-democratic laws and show the public the realities of what their tax dollars are paying for.

greyhat said:

This was a regrettable incident that occurred in error and was not the savage killing you make it out to be. There have been incidents of collateral damage and even rogue soldiers like Sgt Bale; however the latter does not represent an entire military's role in the war. To state otherwise is not only to be ignorant but to be beyond logic.

Click to expand...

Well regardless of what actually happened, we now have a story to match the incident because someone undertook the brave act of bringing it to the public's attention. Had they not done that, maybe we would never have learned that journalists were being attacked. After all, there is command review of all Reuters content leaving the war zone, which means they might not have been able to tell the story to the outside world in the first place.

greyhat said:

Manning did not only leak that video, but thousands of classified cables if the State Department amongst other things. All of those documents were classified for a reason- whether you agree with it or not is beyond the point!

Click to expand...

I will be the judge of whether or not those documents deserved to be classified, and so far it seems like most of them were classified to avoid a PR nightmare, a.k.a to prevent the public from seeking the bad side of war.

greyhat said:

Manning will receive the appropriate punishment for his actions under the UCMJ. Fry him!!

Click to expand...

Manning will be crucified by the same fanatics who are keeping the public stupid, afraid, and ignorant.

greyhat said:

Again you don't know what your taking about; the incident in reference is the one that involved a Reuters' crew being fired upon by accident. They were mistaken for insurgents, and yes, the video showed the crew being happy that they had nailed their perceived target; an action that can be understood within the context of the fog of war.

This was a regrettable incident that occurred in error and was not the savage killing you make it out to be. There have been incidents of collateral damage and even rogue soldiers like Sgt Bale; however the latter does not represent an entire military's role in the war. To state otherwise is not only to be ignorant but to be beyond logic.

Manning did not only leak that video, but thousands of classified cables if the State Department amongst other things. All of those documents were classified for a reason- whether you agree with it or not is beyond the point!

Manning will receive the appropriate punishment for his actions under the UCMJ. Fry him!!

Click to expand...

The Apache crew, and their superiors ALL THE WAY UP the chain of command, committed war crimes in the same fashion that William Calley did at My Lai.

That you thoroughly support such crimes speaks volumes about your own conscience, or lack thereof.

Manning revealed those crimes, and I thank him for his courage, though I was not exactly surprised that an american helicopter crew would celebrate so much over killing innocent children and adults.

The ultimate guilt for those crimes goes all the way UP the chain of command to the C-in-C.

Henry David said:

The Apache crew, and their superiors ALL THE WAY UP the chain of command, committed war crimes in the same fashion that William Calley did at My Lai.

That you thoroughly support such crimes speaks volumes about your own conscience, or lack thereof.

Manning revealed those crimes, and I thank him for his courage, though I was not exactly surprised that an american helicopter crew would celebrate so much over killing innocent children and adults.

The ultimate guilt for those crimes goes all the way UP the chain of command to the C-in-C.

Click to expand...

You think an Apache intentionally targeted a news crew and was commanded to do so by the president?

wow

It looks like someone REALLY wanted wikileaks to be important, and could not handle the disappointment of it being nothing.

ecofarm said:

You think an Apache intentionally targeted a news crew and were commanded to do so by the president?

wow

It looks like someone REALLY wanted wikileaks to be important.

Click to expand...

No, I don't think as you say I think. You jump to conclusions rather quickly, and appear to have ZERO knowledge of the structure and purpose of the military chain of command. I guess it's possible you never actually listened to the tapes made public by Manning.

Henry David said:

No, I don't think as you say I think. You jump to conclusions rather quickly, and appear to have ZERO knowledge of the structure and purpose of the military chain of command. I guess it's possible you never actually listened to the tapes made public by Manning.

Click to expand...

I look at the situation for what it is/was. I take the most obvious explanation. I do not invent hysterically wild stories from sound bites. Look, I'm sorry wikileaks was a big disappointment for you, but creating mountains from nothing will not change that.

ecofarm said:

I look at the situation for what it is/was. I take the most obvious explanation. I do not invent hysterically wild stories from sound bites. Look, I'm sorry wikileaks was a big disappointment for you, but creating mountains from nothing will not change that.

Click to expand...

Wikileaks has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought we were talking about the moral and legal ramifications of the actions of the gunship crew and its HQ.

I'm saying those actions constitute war crimes under international law, and (maybe I'm wrong) but it seems like you think the crew and HQ were doing the right thing? Perhaps I have you confused with another poster here? eace

Henry David said:

I'm saying those actions constitute war crimes under international law, and (maybe I'm wrong) but it seems like you think the crew and HQ were doing the right thing? Perhaps I have you confused with another poster here? eace

Click to expand...

You are inventing BS. The Apache was firing on what it thought was enemy combatants. It did not intentionally target a Reuters news crew - that's ludicrous, unfounded and, frankly, disconnected.

Henry David said:

You jump to conclusions rather quickly, and appear to have ZERO knowledge of the structure and purpose of the military chain of command.

Click to expand...

D Co. 3/505th PIR 82nd Abn