• 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!

Berkeley Mulls Resolution to Honor Army Private Accused of Leaks

I wonder if Berkley knows that Wikileaks damaged Obama's reputation when it released that his administration was looking for dirt to blackmail foreign dignitaries into signing a climate treaty?

Do you think that Wikileaks shouldn't have released that information? Don't you feel it has value to you, as an American citizen?
 
No, "the mainstream left" is not "considering honoring him;" some bozo on the Berkeley City Council is considering honoring him. :roll:

Frankly, this doesn't surprise me.

For one brief, agonizing year, I was the confidential admin to Berkeley's City Clerk, and the outlandish issues the locals brought into our office every day were almost as nutty as the fact that the City Council often took them into consideration. For example, not long after I was hired, I had the joy of including the "Long Live Tinky Winky" measure on the City Council's meeting agenda. [/I] :shock:

The council members I knew back then were all a bit loopy; apparently this current crop is, too. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

Well in all fairness, speaking strictly as a conservative..........that's what the mainstream left looks like to us. :mrgreen:
 
Do you think that Wikileaks shouldn't have released that information? Don't you feel it has value to you, as an American citizen?

Not as long as it has the potential to harm our boys and girls in afghanistan.
 
Not as long as it has the potential to harm our boys and girls in afghanistan.

Psht. The only person it had the potential to harm was a corrupt afghani diplomat and some child rapists. You should read the leak. Seriously. It makes it abundantly clear just how hollow and self-serving these claims of "endangering our forces" are, in practical reality.

Do me a favor. Risk your security clearance and read it. And then tell me what your impressions are about what happened.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/213720
 
Last edited:
Do you think that Wikileaks shouldn't have released that information? Don't you feel it has value to you, as an American citizen?

Value to me and the right thing to do are two wholly separate issues. It's like walking in on your wife having an affair. When she see's you she exclaims "He gave me herpies and you probably have it to." Now, was it wrong of here to have the affair? Absolutely! Was it helpful for her to tell me about the herpies? Absolutely! Does that make the affair ok? Hell no!
 
Last edited:
Value to me and the right thing to do are two wholly separate issues. It's like walking in on your wife having an affair. When she see's you she exclaims "He gave me herpies and you probably have it to." Now, was it wrong of here to have the affair? Absolutely! Was it helpful for her to tell me about the herpies? Absolutely! Does that make the affair ok? Hell no!

So, you don't think that the story about dyncorp paying for child sex slaves should be public consumption.

Why?

As citizens, you don't think we are entitled to know about gross misuses of our tax dollars?
 


Well in all fairness, speaking strictly as a conservative..........that's what the mainstream left looks like to us. :mrgreen:

Perhaps a trip to the ophthalmologist is in order. ;)
 
So, you don't think that the story about dyncorp paying for child sex slaves should be public consumption.

Why?

As citizens, you don't think we are entitled to know about gross misuses of our tax dollars?

Hoy. Can you not see that the ends don't always justify the means?
 
If he gets the award it should be posthumous
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
Read up on Socrates. That's my position legislatively. If required, he should drink the Hemlock.

Morally? I agree, the man is a hero.
 
On one level, I have a feeling that Private Benning felt that he'd uncovered the same sort of wrongdoing that Ellsberg did in the Pentagon papers, when he read the classified information about the helicopter attack on (apparently) unarmed civilians in Iraq.


I think it's more he was pissed cause he was gay.



That's exactly the sort of information that needs to see the light of day. It should not be hushed up and hidden behind a purely military investigation. The American public have a right to information about those kinds of issues, just like we have a right (and a responsibility to know) about what happened in the hidden prisons at Gitmo and in Abu Ghraib.

On another level, Private Benning clearly violated the law and his sworn oath, and he didn't stop with releasing the single incident, but went much, much further to release reams of information that were not necessarily evidence of a government coverup, and in fact, of which he had zero knowledge or understanding.

Private Benning will have his day in court. It's up to the jury/judge (and, frankly, history) to decide whether his actions were traitorous or heroic.

Let me ask those who are so quick to condemn him, though. Do you think Daniel Ellsberg was a traitor or a hero?

I think history has determined that he's a hero. So, what are the crucial differences between Ellsberg and Private Benning?



Traitor benning was angry at how the US and the military views homosexuality.
 
What the hell are you talking about?

I was just trying to speak your language, bro.

You went all philosophical on me, instead of just answering the question. Does that information warrant being known or not?
 
So, you don't think that the story about dyncorp paying for child sex slaves should be public consumption.

Why?

As citizens, you don't think we are entitled to know about gross misuses of our tax dollars?


actually I think that should absolutely should have come out, and if traitor benning went to say the NYT with THIS story instead of everything he could get his pretty little hands on, you'd have a point, he would be a "whistle blower". however, this we know is not what traitor benning did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
Oh and I pulled a catz, I meant manning for everywhere I posted Benning. :doh
 
actually I think that should absolutely should have come out, and if traitor benning went to say the NYT with THIS story instead of everything he could get his pretty little hands on, you'd have a point, he would be a "whistle blower". however, this we know is not what traitor benning did.

I agree that Private Manning should be prosecuted. He clearly violated his sworn oath. However, i see little difference between this story being published by Wikileaks and it being published by the NY Times.

The real question is...would the NY Times have published it. To date, they haven't touched it with a ten foot pole. Why is that, do you think? It is newsworthy, wouldn't you say?

Do you think it's because they've gotten a little too cozy with the current (and possibly former) administration to out their dirty laundry? Why has the Guardian UK jumped on this story, but the NY Times has refused to run it?

Do you, at this point in time, trust our media outlets to hold the government accountable? I don't.

Here's the thing, HH. How many stories has the NY Times bolloxed or passed up on in the past 5 years?
 
Last edited:
I agree that Private Manning should be prosecuted. He clearly violated his sworn oath. However, i see little difference between this story being published by Wikileaks and it being published by the NY Times.

The real question is...would the NY Times have published it. To date, they haven't touched it with a ten foot pole. Why is that, do you think? It is newsworthy, wouldn't you say?

Do you think it's because they've gotten a little too cozy with the current (and possibly former) administration to out their dirty laundry? Why has the Guardian UK jumped on this story, but the NY Times has refused to run it?

Do you, at this point in time, trust our media outlets to hold the government accountable? I don't.

Here's the thing, HH. How many stories has the NY Times bolloxed or passed up on in the past 5 years?



I don't trust any of the media, from fox to npr.


My point is, if he even went to assface with ONLY the dyncorp story, and his motivations were indeed that of a whistleblower instead of an angry gay activists, I'd have more sympathy for traitor manning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
I don't trust any of the media, from fox to npr.


My point is, if he even went to assface with ONLY the dyncorp story, and his motivations were indeed that of a whistleblower instead of an angry gay activists, I'd have more sympathy for traitor manning.

I agree. The one thing I like about wikileaks is that it allows ME to read, without spin, what happened, what was said, etc. What media outlet can we say that about in the U.S. these days?
 
Back
Top Bottom