Manning found guilty in 20 of 21 charges

Sand

MonaPizza wrote: »

so if you were in the us army, an army where 1 in 3 females are raped or sexually assaulted, you wouldn't report these crimes. What a silver code of honour you live your life by.

That just doesn't make any sense. At all.

As for Manning, he was never going to be found innocent, other than by some politically biased court. He freely admitted he took the information, that he knew was restricted and he just dumped it out without any concern or care for the impact it could have on anyone else. The only point up for discussion was if he did so "to aid the enemy".

It doesn't appear he did - he was simply an extremely troubled individual with a lot of personal issues that he needed to work through and the release of the information was a way for him to simultaneously feel powerful and also to get one over on the institution he was deeply unhappy working in. It is unclear why the U.S. Army maintained his security clearance and access to this information whilst he was quite clearly having a major breakdown. But the judgement essentially was fair.

Unfortunately for Manning neither the U.S. Army nor any serious US politician are ever going to condone "Feck it - here's access to secret information, feel free to download it and leak in bulk if you want. No hassle"

Amirani

mikeoneill893 wrote: »

if you ordered to kill some kids and rape their mommas that's different
-you should refuse

pretty sure you not allowed to leak info

it's called rules

I'm glad you consider that different. Where does the ethics based decision making stop though? If everyone else in the army was killing kids and raping their mothers, would you "leak" it or would you just stand by and watch, proud of the fact that it's not you doing it?

Every soldier in the U.S. Army who has witnessed the casual murder and maltreatment of Iraqi and Afghan citizens and has ignored it should feel just as guilty as those committing the crimes. They have innocent blood on their hands.

bumper234

mikeoneill893 wrote: »

yes
you gotta fight if you in the army




if you ordered to kill some kids and rape their mommas that's different
-you should refuse


pretty sure you not allowed to leak info


it's called rules

But you said

mikeoneill893 wrote: »

ya i'd report rape


didn' he leak info


in the army you do what you're told

So you can break one rule but not another?

Manning saw laws being broken and he reported them. Is this not encouraged in American army?

This is why the likes of Mai Lai was covered up for a long time

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/mass/lai/up_7.html

Clandestine

You could have prevented this America

Ron Paul

mikeoneill893

bumper234 wrote: »

But you said



So you can break one rule but not another?

Manning saw laws being broken and he reported them. Is this not encouraged in American army?

This is why the likes of Mai Lai was covered up for a long time

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/mass/lai/up_7.html

yes

you can refuse to kill kids and rape their mommas


get real


you're just being pedantic

Zebra3

Never even had a chance of a fair trial with Obama the child killer declaring him guilty long before the trial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KNz0eQgJS8

bumper234

mikeoneill893 wrote: »

yes

you can refuse to kill kids and rape their mommas


get real


you're just being pedantic

This is one of the things Manning leaked

http://www.policymic.com/articles/57263/collateral-murder-shooters-who-bradley-manning-exposed-go-free-while-he-goes-to-prison

The video shows the gunners shooting into a van that has KIDS in it, The gunners are free today while Manning is in prison. You think this is right?

Amirani

Sand wrote: »

But the judgement essentially was fair.

Legally yes, but morally no. Perhaps the fact that he shared so much information was reckless, but the exposure of war crimes should never be a crime, I'd suggest the opposite should be the case.

I'd like the see the laws in the area changed and some retrospective easing of his sentencing. I'm not against him spending some time in prison for his recklessness, but a potential 136 years is complete and utter bull****.

Amirani

mikeoneill893 wrote: »

yes

you can refuse to kill kids and rape their mommas


get real


you're just being pedantic

What about reporting fellow soldiers for doing it. Is that okay?

bumper234

bumper234 wrote: »

You think this is right?

Dems da Armee rulez!

bumper234

mikeoneill893 wrote: »

yes

you can refuse to kill kids and rape their mommas


get real


you're just being pedantic

So you would have kept something like Mai Lai a secret?

Sand

NiallSparky wrote: »

I'm glad you consider that different. Where does the ethics based decision making stop though? If everyone else in the army was killing kids and raping their mothers, would you "leak" it or would you just stand by and watch, proud of the fact that it's not you doing it?

Every soldier in the U.S. Army who has witnessed the casual murder and maltreatment of Iraqi and Afghan citizens and has ignored it should feel just as guilty as those committing the crimes. They have innocent blood on their hands.

It doesn't appear Manning was motivated by any particular incident of murder or maltreatment of individuals. If there was some particular case where Manning was the whistleblower, then there might be some moral argument for what Manning did. Might.

But he essentially just grabbed everything he could and dumped it out there, presuming "something" must be found. The diplomatic wires were essentially boring - apart from some embarrassing gossip about foreign dignitaries there was no behind the scenes secret conspiracy revealed. The same goes for the Afghan and Iraq: essentially nothing revealed that wasn't known already - except for the names of Afghans who assisted the Americans. I'm sure the Taliban appreciated Manning's help there. The Afghans themselves, probably not so much.

People are claiming Manning was some sort of heroic whistle-blower but apart from giving the papers fodder for a couple of weeks, nothing has resulted from it. Precisely because it didn't reveal any provable crimes, conspiracies or coverups that weren't already reported and under investigation.

Drakares

Land of the Free. This is one of many many reasons I wouldn't go on holidays to the States. Kip.

Amirani

Sand wrote: »

People are claiming Manning was some sort of heroic whistle-blower but apart from giving the papers fodder for a couple of weeks, nothing has resulted from it. Precisely because it didn't reveal any provable crimes, conspiracies or coverups that weren't already reported and under investigation.

This was a crime, and it was covered up. It may have been following the "rules of engagement", but if nobody has legally committed war crimes here then there's something seriously ****ed up with the system.

Exposing this to the World is a good thing, there's no denying that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

bumper234

Sand wrote: »

It doesn't appear Manning was motivated by any particular incident of murder or maltreatment of individuals. If there was some particular case where Manning was the whistleblower, then there might be some moral argument for what Manning did. Might.

But he essentially just grabbed everything he could and dumped it out there, presuming "something" must be found. The diplomatic wires were essentially boring - apart from some embarrassing gossip about foreign dignitaries there was no behind the scenes secret conspiracy revealed. The same goes for the Afghan and Iraq: essentially nothing revealed that wasn't known already - except for the names of Afghans who assisted the Americans. I'm sure the Taliban appreciated Manning's help there. The Afghans themselves, probably not so much.

People are claiming Manning was some sort of heroic whistle-blower but apart from giving the papers fodder for a couple of weeks, nothing has resulted from it. Precisely because it didn't reveal any provable crimes, conspiracies or coverups that weren't already reported and under investigation.

Really?

The video is called collateral murder try watch right to the end where they take the kids out of the van

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

Femme_Fatale

MonaPizza wrote: »

the us army, an army where 1 in 3 females are raped or sexually assaulted

One in three female US soldiers are raped or sexually assaulted by whom?

Zebra3

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

One in three female US soldiers are raped or sexually assaulted by whom?

Their male counterparts.

MonaPizza

mikeoneill893 wrote: »

ya i'd report rape


didn' he leak info


in the army you do what you're told

In the army you DON'T do what you're told. The UCMJ permits in fact obliges any soldier, airman or mariner to refuse to obey an order that he or she deems to be illegal or morally reprehensible. Maybe you're thinking of the mafia or a prison gang. But then again the suits and career thugs in bespoke shirts who are running the military these days don't differ much. Manning's only crime, like Snowden's or Joseph wilson's was that he caused embarrassment, and exposed criminality and they tried to destroy him as a warning to others who might strap on a pair and hold the executive branch and their bouncers in the military accountable for illegal activity. You want America to be shining light on bloody hill, a force for "good" in the world then man up and hold a standard or else just admit that the rules and laws don't apply. At least you'd earn some respect for being an honest criminal and not a hypocritical liar.

willmunny1990

Zebra3 wrote: »

Their male counterparts.

Source?

Femme_Fatale

willmunny1990 wrote: »

Source?

Yeh I'm finding that highly questionable. And I'm certainly not someone who wouldn't take rape/sexual assault seriously.

Zebra3

It's been reported in the media for ages now.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/dec/09/rape-us-military

Rape within the US military has become so widespread that it is estimated that a female soldier in Iraq is more likely to be attacked by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire.

The department of veterans affairs, meanwhile, released an independent study estimating that one in three women had experience of military sexual trauma while on active service. That is double the rate for civilians, which is one in six, according to the US department of justice.

Sand

NiallSparky wrote: »

This was a crime, and it was covered up. It may have been following the "rules of engagement", but if nobody has legally committed war crimes here then there's something seriously ****ed up with the system.

Exposing this to the World is a good thing, there's no denying that.

At the risk of thread derailment, that's not a proven warcrime or even a proven murder. That's a ****up. Soldiers have repeatedly killed their *own* colleagues in similar ****ups. Blue on blue is not a warcrime either.

And even if Manning was horrified by that particular incident, why not just leak only information relating to that incident? Why download and release all information? I could see an argument for Manning as being a whistleblower if he released only the information relating to the alleged crime. He just leaked everything he could lay his hands on without any thought to anyone else.

Like I said, I don't think Manning fits the mould of a whistleblower/martyr. He clearly disliked serving in the U.S. Army. He was an individual who appeared to be bullied in every institution he encountered from school onwards. I'm not clear why he volunteered to join another institution, and he was clearly not mentally happy for a whole host of reasons that were entirely down to his own struggle with his identity. Probably the U.S. Army was not the best environment for him to settle his own personal issues. My view is he wanted to feel powerful, and he wanted to get one over on the boss and he doesn't appear to have been in full command of his faculties. I dont think the attempt to paint him as a political martyr actually helps him as an individual - it portrays him as someone with an agenda and reinforces his personal responsibility. Its bad for him, but good for propaganda I guess.

He got a fair trial and the judgement was fair. He will have to take the sentencing on the chin. I feel sorry for him - as I've said above he seems to be a deeply troubled individual who made a very stupid mistake and has been caught up as a pawn in a bitter struggle between two political camps, neither of whom give a damn about him as a person.

Zebra3

The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were war crimes.

Yet no prosecutions for Bush or Blair.

No prosecution for Obama blowing up kids in Pakistan and Somalia.

Yet Manning gets done.

Justice indeed.

MonaPizza

mikeoneill893 wrote: »

yes
you gotta fight if you in the army




if you ordered to kill some kids and rape their mommas that's different
-you should refuse


pretty sure you not allowed to leak info


it's called rules

And what do you do if you witness others murdering kids, raping women and torturing prisoners? Take part, keep silent or "leak" the evidence when your commanding officer refuses to hear your complaint or threatens you to keep your mouth shut. Because that's what happened to manning and the guy who exposed the torture and murder at Abu ghraib.

Jonny7

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Yeh I'm finding that highly questionable. And I'm certainly not someone who wouldn't take rape/sexual assault seriously.

One statistic claims 20% of female veterans have been raped, although I don't know what the details are of that.

Last year the Secretary of Defense has set up special victims units and is basically trying to reform the military .. marks a big change from the whole sweeping under the carpet that's been there since the year dot.

Of course it's not exactly unique to the US army.

bumper234

Sand wrote: »

At the risk of thread derailment, that's not a proven warcrime or even a proven murder. That's a ****up. Soldiers have repeatedly killed their *own* colleagues in similar ****ups. Blue on blue is not a warcrime either.

It's not proven because the American military had a closed court investigation and found nothing untoward (i know shocking huh?) They even refused to allow the children to be taken to military hospital and made them drive across the city to get treatment.

MonaPizza

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

One in three female US soldiers are raped or sexually assaulted by whom?

Male colleagues. Commanding officers.

joe swanson

OhHiMark wrote: »

Do you always blindly accept every law? I'm not passing comment on this case, but from the way you say that it sounds like you think any law that has been passed should be followed without question.

I didn't pass comment on the rights or wrongs of the law but he was well aware of it being in his position and I'm sure he was well aware of what would happen. You cannot pick and choose laws to obey because you don't like them

Jonny7

MonaPizza wrote: »

the guy who exposed the torture and murder at Abu ghraib.

Who?

It was info passed from detainee's to the press.

bumper234

joe swanson wrote: »

I didn't pass comment on the rights or wrongs of the law but he was well aware of it being in his position and I'm sure he was well aware of what would happen. You cannot pick and choose laws to obey because you don't like them

But he exposed the breaking of laws (murder and such) why are the gunners from that helicopter not in the next cell?