Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Manning found guilty in 20 of 21 charges

Options
124678

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,567 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    @MonaPizza

    Look, its clear you're getting a little excitable and are beginning to project onto me for your dose of 2 minutes of hate. It looks like things are going down the usual objective vs. subjective route, and at this point I'll only be repeating myself so lets leave it at that.


  • Options
    #93
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Erm no.


    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/us-drones-strikes-target-rescuers-pakistan
    Glenn GreenwaldView all798commentsThe US government has long maintained, reasonably enough, that a defining tactic of terrorism is to launch a follow-up attack aimed at those who go to the scene of the original attack to rescue the wounded and remove the dead. Morally, such methods have also been widely condemned by the west as a hallmark of savagery. Yet, as was demonstrated yet again this weekend in Pakistan, this has become one of the favorite tactics of the very same US government.

    Glenn Greenwald claims..

    There's no corroborated evidence of this policy. In fact, any missions to determine the true numbers of victims from drone attacks generally come up with wildly differing figures because of many factors. For instance, few villagers or locals will admit their sons or husbands are militants - it's difficult to get an accurate picture.

    Drones are one of the more precise weapons available, generally far more accurate and less lethal to civilians than conventional missiles, shells, or laser guided bombs.

    It's not US policy to use drones to kill rescuers and children. The militants that are being targeted by the US and Pakistan army/air-force are killing thousands of Pakistan men, women and children - many times the number of those killed by drones - this is often over-looked by those only critical of the drone strikes.


  • Options
    #94
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Sand wrote: »
    Funny how he's sitting in a jail cell for the rest of his natural life when you're not. It might suit your political views to paint Manning as a martyr, a motivated, responsible individual with a political agenda and a total disregard for US laws but it certainly doesn't suit Manning's own interests.

    As I've said before I think Manning was not at all mentally well when he did what he did, and he made a huge, personally destructive mistake. You can airbrush all that out because you don't have to deal with the consequences but Manning will. I do feel sorry for him - I believe his chances of a pardon would be greater if it was seen to be motivated by clemency for a mentally unwell individual. There is zero chance of it as a political move to annoy Republicans and middle America.

    Helping others at the expense of oneself is not a mental illness :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #95
    MonaPizza
    Registered Users Posts: 1,014 ✭✭✭MonaPizza


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Who?

    It was info passed from detainee's to the press.
    it wasn't. The photos were taken by a service member who then tried to pass a cd to outside sources. Do you honestly think a prisoner was taking snapshots of lyndie England laughing at guys' penises or Charles Grainer
    face punching naked guys with bags over their heads?


  • Options
    #96
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    20Cent wrote: »
    Helping others at the expense of oneself is not a mental illness :rolleyes:

    A quick read of Manning's troubled youth, enlistment and views/tendencies leaves me amazed they even let the guy into intelligence, let alone with the information he had access to.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    MonaPizza wrote: »
    it wasn't. The photos were taken by a service member who then tried to pass a cd to outside sources. Do you honestly think a prisoner was taking snapshots of lyndie England laughing at guys' penises or Charles Grainer
    face punching naked guys with bags over their heads?

    You compared this "service member" to Bradley Manning.. who was it?

    Detainees gave interviews to press who ran (largely ignored) stories about Abu Ghraib, this was before the photos came out in subsequent press and then military investigations.


  • Options
    #98
    MonaPizza
    Registered Users Posts: 1,014 ✭✭✭MonaPizza


    Femme_Fatale wrote: »
    One in three female US soldiers are raped or sexually assaulted by whom?

    You weren't aware of this, Femme Fatale? In Iraq female staff had to run from there quarters to the outside latrines at night to avoid rape. So you can imagine what these guys did when they raided an Iraqi man's home and saw his glossy haired, brown eyed daughter cowering behind him.


  • Options
    #99
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    A quick read of Manning's troubled youth, enlistment and views/tendencies leaves me amazed they even let the guy into intelligence, let alone with the information he had access to.

    Don't see why his background or motivation is an issue at all. If someone gives you information its either true or its not, their motivation for doing so is immaterial. He highlighted that what was happening in Iraq is not what the US government were telling us this was a service to everyone interested in truth.

    Snowdens personality and motivations have also become an issue instead of the information that he leaked. Seems to happen to all leakers.


  • Options
    #100
    Christ the Redeemer
    Registered Users Posts: 463 ✭✭Christ the Redeemer


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Glenn Greenwald claims..

    There's no corroborated evidence of this policy. In fact, any missions to determine the true numbers of victims from drone attacks generally come up with wildly differing figures because of many factors. For instance, few villagers or locals will admit their sons or husbands are militants - it's difficult to get an accurate picture.

    Drones are one of the more precise weapons available, generally far more accurate and less lethal to civilians than conventional missiles, shells, or laser guided bombs.

    It's not US policy to use drones to kill rescuers and children. The militants that are being targeted by the US and Pakistan army/air-force are killing thousands of Pakistan men, women and children - many times the number of those killed by drones - this is often over-looked by those only critical of the drone strikes.

    You have no idea what you're talking about. And Double tapping is a policy, especially with the CIA drones.

    God dam I'm starting to remember why I left this site.


  • Options
    #101
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    Think about it, he faces up to 136 years in jail for exposing war crimes. Those that sanctioned & perpetrated war crimes remain free. It's like bizzaro world.

    Also, he did not violate the espionage act and a military judge is not competent to decide that. The espionage act falls outside the Uniform Code of Military Justice.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Christ the Redeemer
    Registered Users Posts: 463 ✭✭Christ the Redeemer


    [-0-] wrote: »
    Think about it, he faces up to 136 years in jail for exposing war crimes. Those that sanctioned & perpetrated war crimes remain free. It's like bizzaro world.

    Also, he did not violate the espionage act and a military judge is not competent to decide that. The espionage act falls outside the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    It's a broken failed state.


  • Options
    #103
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    But those countries, unlike America, would simply make the whistleblower disappear without all the fuss of a court case and media storm. Why the US didn't bother with an "accident" of some sort surprises me given how much they're willing to **** this guy over anyway.


    Considering what probably awaits him, it might have been a mercy.


  • Options
    #104
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,866 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Sand wrote: »
    That's certainly a view you can hold, and who knows - maybe you're right. But the courts of law (the same law you're citing...) disagree with you. And you're going to need a lot more than a 5 line statement of unproven, unsupported assertions to convince the courts otherwise.

    You seem to think the courts in the US are somehow unbiased.

    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #105
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    20Cent wrote: »
    Don't see why his background or motivation is an issue at all. If someone gives you information its either true or its not, their motivation for doing so is immaterial. He highlighted that what was happening in Iraq is not what the US government were telling us this was a service to everyone interested in truth.

    Snowdens personality and motivations have also become an issue instead of the information that he leaked. Seems to happen to all leakers.

    The motivation will determine how they are treated and charged.

    Peronally I feel that Manning's leak was more irresponsible, immature than Snowden's, and hence he will get harsher treatment (which he has so far received)

    They didn't hit him with the "aiding the enemy charge" because that wasn't his motivation.

    If they have access to information they believe is harming the US people (it's always the US isn't it), and if they genuinely feel it's their moral obligation from an objective standpoint to release this information - whether they are right or wrong to release such information - in the real world they will be judged on this motivation, they will also most likely have the book thrown at them (as would happen in any country) - these guys are probably paving the way for a more transparent future, and definitely causing countries either now or in the future to examine their own national security policies (which can only be a good thing)

    Personally I feel that Manning's leak was more irresponsible, immature than Snowden's, and hence he will get harsher treatment (which he has so far received)

    They didn't hit him with the "aiding the enemy charge" because that wasn't his motivation.


  • Options
    #106
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    You seem to think the courts in the US are somehow unbiased.

    :rolleyes:


    ...plus this was a military court, so no jury, different rules etc.


  • Options
    #107
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Christ the Redeemer wrote: »
    You have no idea what you're talking about. And Double tapping is a policy, especially with the CIA drones.

    And I am saying I have never seen any substantial evidence that it is policy. I've followed the Afghanistan war and the situation in Waziristan since it's inception, the reasons for the conflict and the way it was conducted I was firmly against.


  • Options
    #108
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    The motivation will determine how they are treated and charged.

    Peronally I feel that Manning's leak was more irresponsible, immature than Snowden's, and hence he will get harsher treatment (which he has so far received)

    They didn't hit him with the "aiding the enemy charge" because that wasn't his motivation.

    If they have access to information they believe is harming the US people (it's always the US isn't it), and if they genuinely feel it's their moral obligation from an objective standpoint to release this information - whether they are right or wrong to release such information - in the real world they will be judged on this motivation, they will also most likely have the book thrown at them (as would happen in any country) - these guys are probably paving the way for a more transparent future, and definitely causing countries either now or in the future to examine their own national security policies (which can only be a good thing).

    They didn't hit him with aiding the enemy because he didn't aid the enemy.

    I was referring to the inference that he is somehow mentally ill to do what he did.

    There have been leaks about dozens of countries on wikileaks its not "always" the US.


  • Options
    #109
    MonaPizza
    Registered Users Posts: 1,014 ✭✭✭MonaPizza


    Sand wrote: »
    What about option C? Report the crime to another officer or reporting line? Armies (western ones at least) generally frown upon their own soldiers being raped or assaulted, let alone their soldiers murdering kids, raping women or torturing prisoners - they don't approve of it in the way you seem to be implying. If its reported they will investigate and convict if there is a crime.

    Are you for real? Seriously? You witness your colleagues and commanding officer get drunk and torch some Iraqi peasant's house, trash his few acres, kill his few goats for fun and then move on to the next poor fcuk and destroy his livlihood and maybe kill him or send him to gitmo because he has a world war 2 rifle to protect his ten sheep and 4 chickens from foxes and wild dogs. And you just call him a raghead haji terrorist? Rape his daughter while you're at it and claim you don't understand the Arabic for "no, please no! God, please no".


  • Options
    #110
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    20Cent wrote: »
    There have been leaks about dozens of countries on wikileaks its not "always" the US.

    The US has been the focus point of Manning, Snowden and Assange.


  • Options
    #111
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    The US has been the focus point of Manning, Snowden and Assange.

    Manning and Snowden are American of course they would be leaking American data. The wikileaks site has leaks from almost every county.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    MonaPizza
    Registered Users Posts: 1,014 ✭✭✭MonaPizza


    Sand wrote: »
    Funny how he's sitting in a jail cell for the rest of his natural life when you're not. It might suit your political views to paint Manning as a martyr, a motivated, responsible individual with a political agenda and a total disregard for US laws but it certainly doesn't suit Manning's own interests.

    As I've said before I think Manning was not at all mentally well when he did what he did, and he made a huge, personally destructive mistake. You can airbrush all that out because you don't have to deal with the consequences but Manning will. I do feel sorry for him - I believe his chances of a pardon would be greater if it was seen to be motivated by clemency for a mentally unwell individual. There is zero chance of it as a political move to annoy Republicans and middle America.
    you'd betray your principles to save your own hide? Maybe I would too. But then I'm not as brave as manning and neither are you. I'd probably crack under their first threat of castrating my son or little brother and live with my gutlessness. You wouldn't even get that far.


  • Options
    #113
    nacho libre
    Registered Users Posts: 16,728 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    Christ the Redeemer wrote: »
    It's a broken failed state.

    I doubt sand and jonny7 agree with that.


  • Options
    #114
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    20Cent wrote: »
    The wikileaks site has leaks from almost every county.

    When the site launched it was great, then a few years later, it was all about the US. Seemed to become much more of an Assange ego and personal crusade than anything else. Kissinger cables? jaysus


  • Options
    #115
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Wonder if assange promised manning a few virgins for his crimes ohhhh yeah assange doesn't know the meaning of stop ,no , your hurting
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #116
    MonaPizza
    Registered Users Posts: 1,014 ✭✭✭MonaPizza


    Sand wrote: »
    Luckily we don't really have to argue about the law as it extends to Manning's actions. According to the news, a court case was recently held and it turns out that what Manning did was illegal and not protected as whistle-blowing.
    Nice try.
    You shout the law when facts are against you.
    This sacrosanct "law" is all you have when morality trumps your stance. You painted yourself into a corner. Your mistake...and you don't have the moral fibre, strength of character or political courage to admit it. Bradley Manning stood alone and you don't hate him for some inane makey-up crap that he damaged the country, as if goldmann Sachs did nothing to wreck your future, you hate manning because, unlike you, he can't be bought. And that's the only reason you want him dead. He's brave and you aren't.


  • Options
    #117
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,567 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Looking over your last couple of posts....wow. Just wow.
    MonaPizza wrote: »
    Nice try.
    You shout the law when facts are against you.
    This sacrosanct "law" is all you have when morality trumps your stance. You painted yourself into a corner. Your mistake...and you don't have the moral fibre, strength of character or political courage to admit it. Bradley Manning stood alone and you don't hate him for some inane makey-up crap that he damaged the country, as if goldmann Sachs did nothing to wreck your future, you hate manning because, unlike you, he can't be bought. And that's the only reason you want him dead. He's brave and you aren't.

    Out of curiosity, do you believe Manning was found innocent of all charges? Because I've checked the media and they're claiming he was found guilty and will be sentenced tomorrow. You're saying that's not true?

    Oh, and I want him dead apparently? Me and Goldman Sachs, right?
    Are you for real? Seriously? You witness your colleagues and commanding officer get drunk and torch some Iraqi peasant's house, trash his few acres, kill his few goats for fun and then move on to the next poor fcuk and destroy his livlihood and maybe kill him or send him to gitmo because he has a world war 2 rifle to protect his ten sheep and 4 chickens from foxes and wild dogs. And you just call him a raghead haji terrorist? Rape his daughter while you're at it and claim you don't understand the Arabic for "no, please no! God, please no".

    Wasn't this the plot to Platoon?
    you'd betray your principles to save your own hide? Maybe I would too. But then I'm not as brave as manning and neither are you. I'd probably crack under their first threat of castrating my son or little brother and live with my gutlessness. You wouldn't even get that far.

    Right, so Manning didn't crack under their first threat to castrate his male family members? Because that's a thing they do...right?

    Yeah, look, I think we're done here.


  • Options
    #118
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Innocent of aiding the enemy but guilty of espionage.
    The charges never claimed he helped or worked for a foreign power.
    So he's been persecuted for revealing truth to the American public.
    The truth and the American public seem to be the enemy.


  • Options
    #119
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Sentencing tomorrow, if they have any sense of justice considering time spent in solitary should be released immediately.


  • Options
    #120
    MonaPizza
    Registered Users Posts: 1,014 ✭✭✭MonaPizza


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Who?

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

    Jonny,
    US soldier, Joseph Darby exposed the Abu Ghraib torture episodes. Can you explain why you said a detainee informed the press about it? Can you provide any information regarding your claim?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    MonaPizza wrote: »
    Jonny,
    US soldier, Joseph Darby exposed the Abu Ghraib torture episodes. Can you explain why you said a detainee informed the press about it? Can you provide any information regarding your claim?

    Detainees were interviewed by press in 2003

    Darby was a whistle-blower who went to the US military with the photographs in early 2004. The military subsequently started an investigation and reported the abuse to the media, soldiers were suspended and charged.

    It got world-wide attention with the CBS story a few months later.


Advertisement