• 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

Any proof of that or is that like the catch all 'National Security' garbage bin... :peace

I can give one first hand account. For the record, I think overall we are better off for the leak and I supported commuting her sentence, though not a pardon.

I was working at the US Embassy in Tripoli, Libya at the time of the Manning leaks. In the leak were some cables that our Ambassador allegedly wrote that painted Qaddafi in a less than favorable light. The host country is responsible for ensuring the safety of Ambassadors. After the leaks the security assigned to our Ambassador began allowing dangerous individuals to get close to our Ambassador. In fact obviously staged events that were meant to intimidate our Ambassador began happening. In the end the State Department was forced to recall the Ambassador back to the states for his own safety, leaving us without an Ambassador.

In fact, we still didn't have one when the revolution happened and we had to orchestrate an evacuation from Libya for all the Americans. Pulling the strings we had to pull to make the evacuation happen was an order of magnitude more difficult without an Ambassador. Had it been delayed by another 36 hours we likely would have been captured as that is when armed men took over the embassy.

No, nobody reportedly died as a result of the leaks. But my family and I likely came within 36 hours of death or being taken hostage as a result.

And I encountered less serious issues that cost money and man hours as a result of the leaks. And I was just one warrant officer.

My main problem with Manning's actions is she did a bulk leak. She leaked things she didn't even read. Bad unintended consequences are a danger even when you know what you are leaking. They are almost guaranteed when you blindly leak.
 
I can give one first hand account. For the record, I think overall we are better off for the leak and I supported commuting her sentence, though not a pardon. I was working at the US Embassy in Tripoli, Libya at the time of the Manning leaks. In the leak were some cables that our Ambassador allegedly wrote that painted Qaddafi in a less than favorable light. The host country is responsible for ensuring the safety of Ambassadors. After the leaks the security assigned to our Ambassador began allowing dangerous individuals to get close to our Ambassador. In fact obviously staged events that were meant to intimidate our Ambassador began happening. In the end the State Department was forced to recall the Ambassador back to the states for his own safety, leaving us without an Ambassador. In fact, we still didn't have one when the revolution happened and we had to orchestrate an evacuation from Libya for all the Americans. Pulling the strings we had to pull to make the evacuation happen was an order of magnitude more difficult without an Ambassador. Had it been delayed by another 36 hours we likely would have been captured as that is when armed men took over the embassy. No, nobody reportedly died as a result of the leaks. But my family and I likely came within 36 hours of death or being taken hostage as a result. And I encountered less serious issues that cost money and man hours as a result of the leaks. And I was just one warrant officer. My main problem with Manning's actions is she did a bulk leak. She leaked things she didn't even read. Bad unintended consequences are a danger even when you know what you are leaking. They are almost guaranteed when you blindly leak.

It's good you and the staff got out without injury. It is a high risk job in troubled nations like Libya.

Now to cast a bit of back round to your timeframe. Libya was a pressure cooker ready to explode. Qaddafi had the worst of all worlds. He renounced terrorism, that was much touted by BushII as a 'win' for his war in Iraq, but the USofA didn't help him stabilize his country when the radical elements in his country began to push back. His nation was spinning out of control and we left Qaddafi spinning in the wind. He tried to show the ambassador just how dangerous certain men were- and as you say in carefully staged incidents. It was an attempt to convince the USofA to bolster his regime. Instead the ambassador was recalled and Libya was allowed to collapse as we have no love for Qaddafi.

Manning's leaks didn't help but in Libya the die was already cast and I don't think her leaks caused the staged incidents- Qaddafi was desperate to pull the USofA into his nation's turmoil.

But good you got out safe and sound... :peace
 
A retread of the Domino Theory??? How vintage of you... :peace

The enemy has the capacity to assess our public statements to discover pointers to people who may not have been mentioned but on whom suspicion would then fall.
 
It's good you and the staff got out without injury. It is a high risk job in troubled nations like Libya.

Now to cast a bit of back round to your timeframe. Libya was a pressure cooker ready to explode. Qaddafi had the worst of all worlds. He renounced terrorism, that was much touted by BushII as a 'win' for his war in Iraq, but the USofA didn't help him stabilize his country when the radical elements in his country began to push back. His nation was spinning out of control and we left Qaddafi spinning in the wind. He tried to show the ambassador just how dangerous certain men were- and as you say in carefully staged incidents. It was an attempt to convince the USofA to bolster his regime. Instead the ambassador was recalled and Libya was allowed to collapse as we have no love for Qaddafi.

Manning's leaks didn't help but in Libya the die was already cast and I don't think her leaks caused the staged incidents- Qaddafi was desperate to pull the USofA into his nation's turmoil.

But good you got out safe and sound... :peace

I'm not sure I've ever seen a more contorted post.
 
I can give one first hand account. For the record, I think overall we are better off for the leak and I supported commuting her sentence, though not a pardon.

I was working at the US Embassy in Tripoli, Libya at the time of the Manning leaks. In the leak were some cables that our Ambassador allegedly wrote that painted Qaddafi in a less than favorable light. The host country is responsible for ensuring the safety of Ambassadors. After the leaks the security assigned to our Ambassador began allowing dangerous individuals to get close to our Ambassador. In fact obviously staged events that were meant to intimidate our Ambassador began happening. In the end the State Department was forced to recall the Ambassador back to the states for his own safety, leaving us without an Ambassador.

In fact, we still didn't have one when the revolution happened and we had to orchestrate an evacuation from Libya for all the Americans. Pulling the strings we had to pull to make the evacuation happen was an order of magnitude more difficult without an Ambassador. Had it been delayed by another 36 hours we likely would have been captured as that is when armed men took over the embassy.

No, nobody reportedly died as a result of the leaks. But my family and I likely came within 36 hours of death or being taken hostage as a result.

And I encountered less serious issues that cost money and man hours as a result of the leaks. And I was just one warrant officer.

My main problem with Manning's actions is she did a bulk leak. She leaked things she didn't even read. Bad unintended consequences are a danger even when you know what you are leaking. They are almost guaranteed when you blindly leak.

If we compare Manning's tactics and philosophy to Ellsberg's, I wonder which one of them hurt fewer individuals?
 
The enemy has the capacity to assess our public statements to discover pointers to people who may not have been mentioned but on whom suspicion would then fall.

Hog wash and pish-posh... more Cheney logic... :roll:

First the 'enemy' is quite capable of investigating the leaks, perhaps better than we can. They are there and have little regard for 'rule of law'...

You ignore one critical fact- the evidence at trial will be the 'hurt' Manning caused, as aiding the enemy isn't a potential but an actual one.

Keep playing silly games... your excuses are far more convoluted than anything I could dream up, much less post... :peace
 
Hog wash and pish-posh... more Cheney logic... :roll:

First the 'enemy' is quite capable of investigating the leaks, perhaps better than we can. They are there and have little regard for 'rule of law'...

You ignore one critical fact- the evidence at trial will be the 'hurt' Manning caused, as aiding the enemy isn't a potential but an actual one.

Keep playing silly games... your excuses are far more convoluted than anything I could dream up, much less post... :peace

I don't think you're really this obtuse, but I suppose you have your reasons for not recognizing simple reality. Testimony not presented does not offer pointers to the enemy. Can't make it simpler than that.
 
I don't think you're really this obtuse, but I suppose you have your reasons for not recognizing simple reality. Testimony not presented does not offer pointers to the enemy. Can't make it simpler than that.

Oh I believe it's you who lives in a very obtuse world. I recognize BS when it's flung. Again aiding the 'enemy' means the 'hurt' has already been done. The 'enemy' has figured out the clues in the leaks. She would be held accountable for those actions. The 'enemy' doesn't secretly execute those they find guilty. How did the Ames trial show at least 10 Russian nationals were executed???? Was the silly cover of means and methods ignored???

What smoke you throw is thin at best. What she was convicted on pales in comparison to aiding the enemy... do stop now.... :peace
 
Oh I believe it's you who lives in a very obtuse world. I recognize BS when it's flung. Again aiding the 'enemy' means the 'hurt' has already been done. The 'enemy' has figured out the clues in the leaks. She would be held accountable for those actions. The 'enemy' doesn't secretly execute those they find guilty. How did the Ames trial show at least 10 Russian nationals were executed???? Was the silly cover of means and methods ignored???

What smoke you throw is thin at best. What she was convicted on pales in comparison to aiding the enemy... do stop now.... :peace

You are correct that she was not convicted of aiding the enemy, even though she did. The evidence to make that case was withheld to prevent further loss.
 
You are correct that she was not convicted of aiding the enemy, even though she did. The evidence to make that case was withheld to prevent further loss.

then we are all in agreement that she was not found guilty of aiding the enemy
 
The enemy has the capacity to assess our public statements to discover pointers to people who may not have been mentioned but on whom suspicion would then fall.

Who is "the enemy" Jack?

Which is more dangerous, the domestic enemy or the foreign enemy? In terms of actual damage to this country and its way of life, which of those enemies have caused more harm?
 
Who is "the enemy" Jack?

Which is more dangerous, the domestic enemy or the foreign enemy? In terms of actual damage to this country and its way of life, which of those enemies have caused more harm?

We don't have a domestic enemy.
 
We don't have a domestic enemy.

Those are beautiful rose-colored glasses you wear Jack. :lol:

It's plural sir, enemies, not enemy. And the federal government is infested with them, for years.
 
Those are beautiful rose-colored glasses you wear Jack. :lol:

It's plural sir, enemies, not enemy. And the federal government is infested with them, for years.

Sorry, but I'm uninterested in your paranoia.
 
Sorry, but I'm uninterested in your paranoia.

It's not paranoia, it's just viewing the world without rose-colored glasses. Big difference.
 
Yes, we are. She aided the enemy but was not prosecuted for that.

it has not been proven that she aided the enemy. even while the government had a opportunity to present that case to the court
 
it has not been proven that she aided the enemy. even while the government had a opportunity to present that case to the court

If you had followed the thread you would know that I posted that the government declined to present that evidence to avoid endangering more people.
 
If you had followed the thread you would know that I posted that the government declined to present that evidence to avoid endangering more people.

i have followed the thread in its entirety
and i have posted that the government failed to convict chelsea of aiding the enemy

you keep posting that the government failed to do so
with which i agree

you insist the government could have prevailed had it pursued those charges
i disagree
that the government failed to pursue that argument is evident
that the government could have prevailed with that argument is not

your OPINION is noted

i have been posting facts while you have been posting mere opinion, unsupported by any fact
 
i have followed the thread in its entirety
and i have posted that the government failed to convict chelsea of aiding the enemy

you keep posting that the government failed to do so
with which i agree

you insist the government could have prevailed had it pursued those charges
i disagree
that the government failed to pursue that argument is evident
that the government could have prevailed with that argument is not

your OPINION is noted

i have been posting facts while you have been posting mere opinion, unsupported by any fact

I know whereof I speak.
 
A letter to the editor published in the Washington Post on 20 September:

I agree that Harvard University made a mistake regarding Chelsea Manning. It wasn’t about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues or Corey Lewandowski or Mike Morell. It was about asking a traitor who gave away classified information to be a visiting fellow at the Kennedy School of Government’s Institute of Politics. Ms. Manning’s act of turning over classified information threatened sources who spoke confidentially to U.S. diplomats and other officials or who worked with the U.S. government. Their lives are at risk. At a minimum, some of them were forced into exile for their safety; their families who remained have been harassed and a few U.S. diplomats who reported on these conversations have been forced to leave their diplomatic posts. I’m weary of the “whataboutism” in this case that overlooks the serious — and continuing — damage to U.S. foreign policy interests that Ms. Manning caused. That’s why Harvard should have never invited Ms. Manning in the first place.

Richard D. Kauzlarich, Falls Church

The writer is distinguished visiting professor at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University and a former U.S. ambassador.
 
Back
Top Bottom