• 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!

Harvard withdraws Chelsea Manning's visiting fellow invitation after backlash

notquiteright said:
Bit of a drama queen ya got going there duntcha think? So you think past presidents messed up by not shooting Pollard, Walker, Miller, Hanssen, Lee, White....

there is a rather long list... and you mean she COULD have been shot... :peace
Click to expand...

I don't believe I said he should be shot. Did I?
 
Jack Hays said:
And then prematurely pardoned. She should have served the full sentence.
Click to expand...

I get how some think that, I hope you get I don't see her exposing secrets on the same level as a Miller or Walker. She embarrassed the Military but was not convicted of aiding the enemy.

Kinda makes a difference, I'm an old Grunt and can easily live with her pardon... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
I get how some think that, I hope you get I don't see her exposing secrets on the same level as a Miller or Walker. She embarrassed the Military but was not convicted of aiding the enemy.

Kinda makes a difference, I'm an old Grunt and can easily live with her pardon... :peace
Click to expand...

She endangered people who helped the US.
 
Jack Hays said:
I happen to know it's true. I don't care whether you believe me.
Click to expand...

Apparently only you seem to know this, not the first time you claim to know something no one else seems to...

Course with the trial and so many charges that wasn't one of them. Funny how that works.

But I guess 'hurt' could mean embarrass and of course Chelsea's chain of command probably had their careers hurt... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
Apparently only you seem to know this, not the first time you claim to know something no one else seems to...

Course with the trial and so many charges that wasn't one of them. Funny how that works.

But I guess 'hurt' could mean embarrass and of course Chelsea's chain of command probably had their careers hurt... :peace
Click to expand...

No comment. Sufficient information was made public to secure her conviction. No more was necessary.
 
Jack Hays said:
No comment. Sufficient information was made public to secure her conviction. No more was necessary.
Click to expand...

LOL... now ya move the goal posts. There was ZERO question she committed a series of crimes.

If someone got 'hurt' that would warrant an additional charge as the 'hurt' is already done and the leaked information was already public due to WikiLeaks... :doh

Your 'no comment' is more like 'no proof' just opinion... imagine that...
 
notquiteright said:
LOL... now ya move the goal posts. There was ZERO question she committed a series of crimes.

If someone got 'hurt' that would warrant an additional charge as the 'hurt' is already done and the leaked information was already public due to WikiLeaks... :doh

Your 'no comment' is more like 'no proof' just opinion... imagine that...
Click to expand...

No. "No comment" means that and only that. It was decided that only enough information would be made public to secure a conviction and substantial sentence. An early pardon was not expected. The example was Pollard.
 
Jack Hays said:
No. "No comment" means that and only that. It was decided that only enough information would be made public to secure a conviction and substantial sentence. An early pardon was not expected. The example was Pollard.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, I keep forgetting you still have so many well placed contacts in 'the agency'... :roll:

But one more time...IF someone was 'hurt' the other guys already know, Wiki already made the documents public... :doh

It makes ZERO sense to claim that information shouldn't be used in court and aiding the enemy is a VERY serious crime that would have held great weight in making sure Chelsea never had another free day...

You make ZERO sense... again... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
Oh yes, I keep forgetting you still have so many well placed contacts in 'the agency'... :roll:

But one more time...IF someone was 'hurt' the other guys already know, Wiki already made the documents public... :doh

It makes ZERO sense to claim that information shouldn't be used in court and aiding the enemy is a VERY serious crime that would have held great weight in making sure Chelsea never had another free day...

You make ZERO sense... again... :peace
Click to expand...

There are reasons to deny information to the enemy. As for your other comment, I make you the same offer I've made to others: If you wish, I'll PM you a link to my LinkedIn page and you can decide for yourself.
 
The only reason why Manning is getting so much sympathy is because he became a she, and trans politics are center stage in the U.S. right now. If there was no social justice cause attached to this person, he would still be rotting in jail or worse. A fellowship for a traitor is the wrong course of action and I'm glad Morrell stepped down in protest. I would have!
 
notquiteright said:
Apparently only you seem to know this, not the first time you claim to know something no one else seems to...

Course with the trial and so many charges that wasn't one of them. Funny how that works.

But I guess 'hurt' could mean embarrass and of course Chelsea's chain of command probably had their careers hurt... :peace
Click to expand...

Why further expose the details of anything classified if you have ample evidence to get a conviction without taking that step?
 
Jack Hays said:
I happen to know it's true. I don't care whether you believe me.
Click to expand...

It is just that some people do not understand well, how intelligence works, never read into the published data or just want to harm the US by spreading suspicion.
 
Jack Hays said:
There are reasons to deny information to the enemy. As for your other comment, I make you the same offer I've made to others: If you wish, I'll PM you a link to my LinkedIn page and you can decide for yourself.
Click to expand...

Oh you've already typed about your CIA experience during the Benghazi incident, no need to be coy now. You claimed station chief at one point.

As for denying the enemy... you make ZERO sense... if anyone was hurt (past their ego) then the 'enemy' knows already as they were the ones to hurt someone... :doh

So Chelsea would have been charged. Wiki already gave the enemy the information so no protecting anything there.

This is just rather weak tea posturing by someone who hints a great deal but bottom line expects us to just take his word for something even a little bit of thought can tell it's just blowing smoke. But Cheney would be proud of the effort... :peace
 
joG said:
You did researchbthe case at the time?
Click to expand...

The Gubmint did so and concluded no aid to the enemy... If the Military doesn't believe a soldier aided the enemy, and as an old grunt I can tell you the Military takes a dim view of aiding the enemy, then I'll not give a lot of weight to rather rabid partisans attempting to bluff their opinion as fact... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
Oh you've already typed about your CIA experience during the Benghazi incident, no need to be coy now. You claimed station chief at one point.

As for denying the enemy... you make ZERO sense... if anyone was hurt (past their ego) then the 'enemy' knows already as they were the ones to hurt someone... :doh

So Chelsea would have been charged. Wiki already gave the enemy the information so no protecting anything there.

This is just rather weak tea posturing by someone who hints a great deal but bottom line expects us to just take his word for something even a little bit of thought can tell it's just blowing smoke. But Cheney would be proud of the effort... :peace
Click to expand...

No. The information required to prove the point could point to others not yet suspected by the enemy.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Why further expose the details of anything classified if you have ample evidence to get a conviction without taking that step?
Click to expand...

Nonsense excuse. Aiding the enemy is a SERIOUS offense. The information was already exposed and the damage had been done. If someone was hurt, again the damage was done. Hays claimed people WERE hurt, not could be hurt so the damage supposedly was done so that HISTORY is quite damming and would have been presented.

Back in the Cold War if an American exposed Russian nationals working for the CIA and they were shot that evidence would have been presented at their trial. Aldrich Ames comes to mind. Among many other charges he was accused in court of exposing at least 10 Russian Nationals who were shot. So your argument of 'why bother' is empty and silly.

It is a serious offense and is treated by the Military as such. If people WERE HURT, not could have been hurt, the Military would have added that charge (and found Manning guilty as no one loves a snitch)

The excuses are weak... :peace
 
Jack Hays said:
No. The information required to prove the point could point to others not yet suspected by the enemy.
Click to expand...

No that's just illogical. If someone was hurt then the information on that subject is known to the enemy. Cheney tried that same silly 'logic' and it didn't fly then either. It would take a very complacent 'enemy' to not investigate more than just what was in the leaks and plenty of time had passed before the trial so the hurt would have public sources.

More bluff and Bull... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
Or she could give valuable insight on what drives someone who set out to do their patriotic duty (so few who judge have) to expose scandal behind the cover story and face the consequences of her actions... :peace
Click to expand...

If there were more Mannings and Snowdens this society would be much less corrupt. That's why they must be shunned by the system.
 
notquiteright said:
No that's just illogical. If someone was hurt then the information on that subject is known to the enemy. Cheney tried that same silly 'logic' and it didn't fly then either. It would take a very complacent 'enemy' to not investigate more than just what was in the leaks and plenty of time had passed before the trial so the hurt would have public sources.

More bluff and Bull... :peace
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you don't understand. One thing leads to another . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom