• 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!

US judge rules not to drop Manning charge

Manning gave classified material to Wikileaks knowing that it would then be disseminated over the internet. Manning knew that the USA's enemies have access to the internet; therefore, Manning knowingly provided classified material to USA's enemies. That's treason. :shrug:

So you're arguing that any public dissemination of classified information, because Al Qaeda can read it, is treason. Keeping secrets from Al Qaeda is more important, in your opinion, than the government being honest with the American people. Manning did not give any information to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization. He gave information to journalists to publish it to the American people.

Tell me, how do we define enemies, in this instance? We're not officially at war with anyone. Shouldn't the criteria for a criminal charge require legally defined terms? If this goes through than any publication of any information that any possible terrorist could obtain is potentially giving aid to the enemy. Our domestic journalism, any publication over the internet, is suddenly subject to criminal penalty, possibly death, if deemed to be be "aiding" any potential enemy. Doesn't that idea scare the crap out of you?

So you say. I, on the other hand, say you're wrong. No jury in their right minds is going to buy that argument. They will buy the argument that a reasonable man would foresee Wiki publishing the information; and, for that reason, he will be found guilty. You're splitting hairs.

Then intent doesn't matter and publicly informing on the government to the American people is treason.

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!!

They're American citizens. Well, Manning and Snowden are. They're the ones that the government is supposed to be by, for, and of. The government is supposed to sacrifice for their benefit. Not the other way around.

Hey, listen - I don't think Manning should get a tough sentence but are you saying that he didn't realize WikiLeaks was going to release the information to the world - which I'll remind you - includes enemies of the US?

There is no practical way to release information to just loyal Americans. If Manning is a traitor than anyone who uncovers any dirty government secret and tells the American people about it is also a traitor. This means that loyalty to the people is criminal when it conflicts with loyalty to the government. How can ANYONE advocate that position?

Wikilieaks is not a journalist organization- thats an insult to journalists. WL is an anti-secrecy cult.

And cable news, our "mainstream media" is a beacon of journalistic integrity.

They're global publications. Which pretty much ensures that they would have. Unless of course NK, Iran etc, don't have internet. Which then, all cool. I guess.

So then, like the others in this thread, you're saying that keeping secrets from potential enemies (which North Korea and Iran would be, since we're not at war with them) trumps any efforts to inform the American people of the illegal or improper actions of the government.

How are liberals okay with this? How are conservatives okay with this? How is anyone okay with the precedent that telling the American people what our government is doing is treason!?!?
 
So you're arguing that any public dissemination of classified information, because Al Qaeda can read it, is treason.

Giving it to ANY ONE not authorized and not REQUIRED to is illegal- period, simple. In fact just holding a Top Secret clearance doesn't entitle you to access to classified information; you have to have a need to know. This is why info is marked TS SCI; sensitive compartmentalized information is meant to be accessed only by those who need to. The same applies to other classifications such as "Secret".

Manning violated the law, and this is why he will be punished; is that so hard to see?

He isn't being charged with treason by the US Gov. He is being charged with Aiding the enemy amongst other things, which makes sense given that some if the information he leaked was from CIDNE, a military intelligence database which contains tactical information on troops.
 
So you're arguing that any public dissemination of classified information, because Al Qaeda can read it, is treason. Keeping secrets from Al Qaeda is more important, in your opinion, than the government being honest with the American people. Manning did not give any information to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization. He gave information to journalists to publish it to the American people.


Great points.

And as some others have asked...why aren't the NYTimes, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and the thousand other media outlets who used and published the leaked information...why aren't they liable as well?
 
So you're arguing that any public dissemination of classified information, because Al Qaeda can read it, is treason. Keeping secrets from Al Qaeda is more important, in your opinion, than the government being honest with the American people. Manning did not give any information to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization. He gave information to journalists to publish it to the American people.

Yes IMO, when it comes to certain things. This isn't something new you know. Released secrets has the potential to put American and allied troops in danger, or just our national security in general. The world is a complicated place. Every single president and administration has had to keep "secrets" from the American people. It doesn't take a genius to understand why.
 
You're making presumptions again. I was against the war in Iraq, and will never forgive Bush for going after bin Laden in Afghanistan with only half the troops needed, which allowed Al Qaeda and the Taliban to escape Tora Bora. That's a truth I can certainly deal with. However, accusing the President of the United States of being guilty of every crime ever committed by military personnel is not only ludicrous, it speaks to an agenda, using any stretch to discredit and smear the entire government. So, what's your agenda? You keep your own location secret while you slander and defame. Interesting.

I fail to see my home address as being relevant to the discussion. Are you that desperate as you defend the Global War On Terror and what it has brought us?

Your anger and lack of forgiveness for Bush are personal problems. I am not angry, just disgusted and sadly disappointed about what my country has become, what with so many citizens calling for the hanging of whistleblowers like Manning. "Hanging" is a figure of speech here.

Whether he intended it or not, the President is the C-in-C, and he took us to war under fraud, in very large part so that his cronies could line their pockets with taxpayer dollars. And Obama governs like Bush on steroids. It's not my fault, I've been arguing against it for years.
 
Giving it to ANY ONE not authorized and not REQUIRED to is illegal- period, simple. In fact just holding a Top Secret clearance doesn't entitle you to access to classified information; you have to have a need to know. This is why info is marked TS SCI; sensitive compartmentalized information is meant to be accessed only by those who need to. The same applies to other classifications such as "Secret".

Manning violated the law, and this is why he will be punished; is that so hard to see?

He isn't being charged with treason by the US Gov. He is being charged with Aiding the enemy amongst other things, which makes sense given that some if the information he leaked was from CIDNE, a military intelligence database which contains tactical information on troops.

You know what's so funny about your post and chosen position?

You rail about "the law requires this and the law requires that, and Manning broke the law", but you never ever mention the Supreme Law of the Land, aka the US Constitution, which has been violated steadily by at least 2 Presidents, Congresses, and Supreme Courts.

Why do you not object to THEIR breaking the law? Why do you defend their criminal actions by your silence?
 
Giving it to ANY ONE not authorized and not REQUIRED to is illegal- period, simple. In fact just holding a Top Secret clearance doesn't entitle you to access to classified information; you have to have a need to know. This is why info is marked TS SCI; sensitive compartmentalized information is meant to be accessed only by those who need to. The same applies to other classifications such as "Secret".

Manning violated the law, and this is why he will be punished; is that so hard to see?

He isn't being charged with treason by the US Gov. He is being charged with Aiding the enemy amongst other things, which makes sense given that some if the information he leaked was from CIDNE, a military intelligence database which contains tactical information on troops.

And yet he didn't release troop information. None. Not a bit of it. Why does everyone keep bringing that up? It didn't happen. Most of what he released was communications by our state department that demonstrated shady dealings by them. How is this any different than exposing Watergate? That wasn't treason or aiding the enemy merely because the Vietnamese could get a copy of the Washington Post. What makes this different?

Great points.

And as some others have asked...why aren't the NYTimes, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and the thousand other media outlets who used and published the leaked information...why aren't they liable as well?

I hope you use that to show why Manning should not be liable, rather than use this as an attempt to destroy the American press.

Yes IMO, when it comes to certain things. This isn't something new you know. Released secrets has the potential to put American and allied troops in danger, or just our national security in general. The world is a complicated place. Every single president and administration has had to keep "secrets" from the American people. It doesn't take a genius to understand why.

None of the information released by Manning and WikiLeaks actually did that. No troop information was released. Nor was anything that damaged our security. They read the documents and parsed out any such information before releasing it. How can we punish someone over hypothetical damage that their actions didn't and couldn't case?

Again, no troop information that put anyone in danger was released. None of the information lead to any risk to military operations from enemy combatants. That seems to be the big thing that defines the need to keep secrets: military supremacy over our enemies. Our poorly defined and not legally specified enemies. None of that was endangered by Manning and WikiLeaks. So what's the big deal?
 
And yet he didn't release troop information. None. Not a bit of it. Why does everyone keep bringing that up? It didn't happen. Most of what he released was communications by our state department that demonstrated shady dealings by them. How is this any different than exposing Watergate? That wasn't treason or aiding the enemy merely because the Vietnamese could get a copy of the Washington Post. What makes this different?



I hope you use that to show why Manning should not be liable, rather than use this as an attempt to destroy the American press.



None of the information released by Manning and WikiLeaks actually did that. No troop information was released. Nor was anything that damaged our security. They read the documents and parsed out any such information before releasing it. How can we punish someone over hypothetical damage that their actions didn't and couldn't case?

Again, no troop information that put anyone in danger was released. None of the information lead to any risk to military operations from enemy combatants. That seems to be the big thing that defines the need to keep secrets: military supremacy over our enemies. Our poorly defined and not legally specified enemies. None of that was endangered by Manning and WikiLeaks. So what's the big deal?

The CIDNE info was leaked; it may have been redacted by WL, but it was leaked nonetheless that's why the charge stands; furthermore, you missed the point- even if all he leaked was the SD cables, that is still breaking the law- period! Those cables were classified and their release, whether you agree with it or not, warrants the charge.
 
Again, no troop information that put anyone in danger was released. None of the information lead to any risk to military operations from enemy combatants. That seems to be the big thing that defines the need to keep secrets: military supremacy over our enemies. Our poorly defined and not legally specified enemies. None of that was endangered by Manning and WikiLeaks. So what's the big deal?

Well, we just can't have military personnel releasing classified information. That sets a pretty bad precedent and needs to be corrected. IOW, they want to set an example of types of behavior that will not be tolerated, ever or for any reason.

He should have done what others have done, wait and write a book about it. :lol: That would have been the smart move on his part.
 
Well, we just can't have military personnel releasing classified information. That sets a pretty bad precedent and needs to be corrected. IOW, they want to set an example of types of behavior that will not be tolerated, ever or for any reason.

The CIDNE info was leaked; it may have been redacted by WL, but it was leaked nonetheless that's why the charge stands; furthermore, you missed the point- even if all he leaked was the SD cables, that is still breaking the law- period! Those cables were classified and their release, whether you agree with it or not, warrants the charge.

Releasing classified documents and aiding the enemy are two very different things. I'm not arguing that he shouldn't be held accountable for the mere release of information. But I am arguing that his efforts were a net positive and he can't be punished for harm he didn't cause.
 
Releasing classified documents and aiding the enemy are two very different things. I'm not arguing that he shouldn't be held accountable for the mere release of information. But I am arguing that his efforts were a net positive and he can't be punished for harm he didn't cause.

But he CAN be punished for breaking the rules and probably some oaths that he took as well. I'm quite sure he signed confidentiality clauses, etc. You don't screw over the U.S. military unless you're prepared to pay the price I guess. Lol! 200 or so years ago, he probably would have been shot on sight!
 
Releasing classified documents and aiding the enemy are two very different things. I'm not arguing that he shouldn't be held accountable for the mere release of information. But I am arguing that his efforts were a net positive and he can't be punished for harm he didn't cause.

There's a reason why they were classified right? Obviously for infosec...Manning, Snowden and the like are not adjudicators of what should and shouldn't be classified.

WL and the like may think there is no harm in certain disclosures; however the impact from a CI damage is one they're not trained or capable of making a proper determination on.
 
I hope you use that to show why Manning should not be liable, rather than use this as an attempt to destroy the American press.

Absolutely. I certainly didn't mean that the press should be prosecuted for those rare occasions when it actually does its job and tries to hold powerful entities accountable (rather than supporting and defending them, as the press more often tends to do).

I only meant that the attack on Manning, and for that matter on Wikileaks, are conveniently selective, and that there must be a lesson in that fact somewhere.
 
But he CAN be punished for breaking the rules and probably some oaths that he took as well. I'm quite sure he signed confidentiality clauses, etc. You don't screw over the U.S. military unless you're prepared to pay the price I guess. Lol! 200 or so years ago, he probably would have been shot on sight!

Good thing we're more civilized than that now, huh?

There's a reason why they were classified right? Obviously for infosec...Manning, Snowden and the like are not adjudicators of what should and shouldn't be classified.

WL and the like may think there is no harm in certain disclosures; however the impact from a CI damage is one they're not trained or capable of making a proper determination on.

And why do you allow people who have a vested personal interest in secrecy to be the only ones who can decide those things? And are you seriously suggesting that it takes specific training in order to have an opinion on your government's policies?

You two are going so far out of your way to justify punishing this man. He didn't harm anyone. He acted to benefit the people of his nation. Kick him out of the military, fine. But don't you dare call loyalty to the American people treason. Stop trading your freedom for security. You end up with neither.
 
Good thing we're more civilized than that now, huh?



And why do you allow people who have a vested personal interest in secrecy to be the only ones who can decide those things? And are you seriously suggesting that it takes specific training in order to have an opinion on your government's policies?

You two are going so far out of your way to justify punishing this man. He didn't harm anyone. He acted to benefit the people of his nation. Kick him out of the military, fine. But don't you dare call loyalty to the American people treason. Stop trading your freedom for security. You end up with neither.

That makes no sense; if you aren't qualified to handle TS info then you aren't- period, and even if you are, you need a "need to know" basis.

We have laws and in a democracy we transfer power to our representative government who has created the laws Manning broke; the appropriate punishment will now be dealt. This isn't a direct democracy, we don't get to sit around and discuss this as a group..

If you don't like the law- take it up with your congressmen!
 
Releasing classified documents and aiding the enemy are two very different things. I'm not arguing that he shouldn't be held accountable for the mere release of information. But I am arguing that his efforts were a net positive and he can't be punished for harm he didn't cause.

A positive in your opinion. And, yes, he can, if the panel finds him guilty of the charge. In this case, their opinions do matter and may not be the same as yours.
 
Good thing we're more civilized than that now, huh?

A matter of opinion. Considering the number of traitorous socialist people in America today, my opinion is that we would be better off being "less civilized" (probably your opinion) or more civilized by eradicating them (my opinion).
 
And yet he didn't release troop information. None. Not a bit of it. Why does everyone keep bringing that up? It didn't happen. Most of what he released was communications by our state department that demonstrated shady dealings by them. How is this any different than exposing Watergate? That wasn't treason or aiding the enemy merely because the Vietnamese could get a copy of the Washington Post. What makes this different?



I hope you use that to show why Manning should not be liable, rather than use this as an attempt to destroy the American press.



None of the information released by Manning and WikiLeaks actually did that. No troop information was released. Nor was anything that damaged our security. They read the documents and parsed out any such information before releasing it. How can we punish someone over hypothetical damage that their actions didn't and couldn't case?

Again, no troop information that put anyone in danger was released. None of the information lead to any risk to military operations from enemy combatants. That seems to be the big thing that defines the need to keep secrets: military supremacy over our enemies. Our poorly defined and not legally specified enemies. None of that was endangered by Manning and WikiLeaks. So what's the big deal?

People keep bringing that up because they actually believe it. Even though Robert Gates SecDef said on camera that no US individual or troop was harmed by the info Manning released, some people convince themselves he was.

It would be interesting to know if Manning released any info that was Top Secret. As I recall, he did not. It was classified, but today's government classifies how much toilet paper it buys in a year.

Daniel Ellsberg, OTOH, released mostly TS material.
 
People keep bringing that up because they actually believe it. Even though Robert Gates SecDef said on camera that no US individual or troop was harmed by the info Manning released, some people convince themselves he was.

It would be interesting to know if Manning released any info that was Top Secret. As I recall, he did not. It was classified, but today's government classifies how much toilet paper it buys in a year.

Daniel Ellsberg, OTOH, released mostly TS material.

Secret, Top Secret etc it doesn't matter...it is still classified and for a reason; this may be a factor consider at trial but it doesn't change the fact that he broke the law.

It seems like very few of you supporters are willing to absorb this inconvenient truth: the guy is a trained intelligence specialist- hello!??

You are taught that ANY LEAK of CLASSIFIED info is of CI value to the enemy!!

Holy jumping jelly beans- is that so hard to understand??
 
Secret, Top Secret etc it doesn't matter...it is still classified and for a reason; this may be a factor consider at trial but it doesn't change the fact that he broke the law.

It seems like very few of you supporters are willing to absorb this inconvenient truth: the guy is a trained intelligence specialist- hello!??

You are taught that ANY LEAK of CLASSIFIED info is of CI value to the enemy!!

Holy jumping jelly beans- is that so hard to understand??

What you apparently fail to consider is that these days the federal government classifies virtually everything. Sorry I can't provide a "link", but there have been many articles written about that.

You also fail to realize, or prefer to pretend otherwise, that the war in which Manning was involved was brought under fraud. Manning revealed the criminal actions of the government.

Is that so hard to understand? Or is it easier to just pretend otherwise?
 
What you apparently fail to consider is that these days the federal government classifies virtually everything. Sorry I can't provide a "link", but there have been many articles written about that.

You also fail to realize, or prefer to pretend otherwise, that the war in which Manning was involved was brought under fraud. Manning revealed the criminal actions of the government.

Is that so hard to understand? Or is it easier to just pretend otherwise?

Sounds like you need to take your grievances to your congressmen.. Have them change the law etc.

Manning joined the Army in 2007- 5 years after the start of the current Iraqi conflict, it's not like he didn't know there was a war going on..
 
What you apparently fail to consider is that these days the federal government classifies virtually everything. Sorry I can't provide a "link", but there have been many articles written about that.

You also fail to realize, or prefer to pretend otherwise, that the war in which Manning was involved was brought under fraud. Manning revealed the criminal actions of the government.

Is that so hard to understand? Or is it easier to just pretend otherwise?

I think you have a very bad understanding of classifications. The government does not "classify" everything. I must say though, that you and others have definitely proven why there was a need for a Military Justice system independent of the Civil one.

As to the war being fraudulent, that has been discussed ad infinitum in multiple threads and has never been definitively proven.

What criminal actions did he reveal?
 
What you apparently fail to consider is that these days the federal government classifies virtually everything. Sorry I can't provide a "link", but there have been many articles written about that.

You also fail to realize, or prefer to pretend otherwise, that the war in which Manning was involved was brought under fraud. Manning revealed the criminal actions of the government.

Is that so hard to understand? Or is it easier to just pretend otherwise?

Is it that hard to Google and post a link to back up your claims? That's part of debating. Any schmuck can make any outrageous claims they want, doesn't make it true. NOT that I don't believe this particular claim, but this seems to be a bad debate tactic that you use.
 
I think you have a very bad understanding of classifications. The government does not "classify" everything. I must say though, that you and others have definitely proven why there was a need for a Military Justice system independent of the Civil one.

As to the war being fraudulent, that has been discussed ad infinitum in multiple threads and has never been definitively proven.

What criminal actions did he reveal?

Are you aware of Curveball? What about WMD? What about the claim that Iraq, whose army was decimated 12 years prior in the First Gulf War, who had no navy and no air force, was a threat to the US? Did you really believe that, or were you too young at the time to have been aware of all that?

I did my time in the US Army, and it was a no-brainer that after 12 years of sanctions, with no effective military at all, Iraq was no threat at all to this country on the other side of the globe.

The war was brought under fraud, and if you don't understand that, well...it's a personal problem of some sort with understanding history.

The criminal actions he revealed were those of the gunship crew and its supervisors.
 
Are you aware of Curveball? What about WMD? What about the claim that Iraq, whose army was decimated 12 years prior in the First Gulf War, who had no navy and no air force, was a threat to the US?

I suppose that by that assessment, Hezbollah, which has no navy and no army isn't a thread... This isn't a discussion about our endeavors in Afghanistan/Iraq btw.

Back to the point: your feelings about Afghanistan & Iraq do not warrant Manning's actions, they may rationalize your point of view, but they don't justify his crime.

He joined the Army in 2007- five years after the current Iraq conflict began, it's not like he didn't know a war was going on.
 
Back
Top Bottom