Manning found guilty in 20 of 21 charges

Macumazan · 30-07-2013 09:36PM

bumper234 wrote: »

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

An excellent question bumper!

20Cent · 30-07-2013 09:37PM

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.

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.

No he didn't "leak everything he could get his hands on" journalists went through it. It was first offered to the New York Times. He was careful not to leak anything that could endanger human resources on the ground. Thats the one think he was found not guilty of!

Sand wrote: »

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.

Funny how smears on the character and motivations of all leakers are always brought up as if that is even an issue.

Sand · 30-07-2013 09:40PM

MonaPizza wrote: »

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.

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.

Macumazan · 30-07-2013 09:41PM

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.

Oh to be so young and so naive.... :-)

bumper234 · 30-07-2013 09:42PM

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.

So why are those helicopter pilots not in jail?

willmunny1990 · 30-07-2013 09:43PM

bumper234 wrote: »

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

Because the U.S government/Army is as corrupt as any other nation in the world if not more.

We are all aware of this fact and so was Manning, he joined up knowing full well what goes on and now he's paying the price for trying to be a hero.

Macumazan · 30-07-2013 09:45PM

willmunny1990 wrote: »

Because the U.S government/Army is as corrupt as any other nation in the world if not more.

We are all aware of this fact and so was Manning, he joined up knowing full well what goes on and now he's paying the price for trying to be a hero.

He is a hero, he exposed scandals almost on a par with PRISM.

Zebra3 · 30-07-2013 09:46PM

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.

So why has Bush not been investigated and charged with war crimes? :rolleyes:

bumper234 · 30-07-2013 09:47PM

Macumazan wrote: »

He is a hero, he exposed scandals almost on a par with PRISM.

He is a hero outside of the US

Sand · 30-07-2013 09:48PM

20Cent wrote: »

Funny how smears on the character and motivations of all leakers are always brought up as if that is even an issue.

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.

Nodin · 30-07-2013 09:48PM

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.

That depends on a number of factors...
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/10/040510fa_fact

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/25/070625fa_fact_hersh

MonaPizza · 30-07-2013 09:49PM

Sand wrote: »

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"

You don't seem to know much about the law and are quite frankly making it up as you go along. Whistleblowers are protected. Manning didn't pass secrets on to "the enemy", whoever that is. He passed evidence of American war times to wikileaks who then published it. Get your facts right. You're redefining everything to suit your dead argument. Why aren't you screaming for the death penalty or life in prison under the Espionage Act for Lewis Libby who exposed (or rather took the rap) for putting CIA agent Valerie plane in revenge for her husband exposing the Iraq wmd program as a fabrication. Outting of a CIA operative constitutes treason too, pal. Or didn't you know that? Selective amnesia perhaps.

Guy:Incognito · 30-07-2013 09:49PM

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.

Is the statistic from the relevant group (they may well actually be called 1 in 3) not that 1 on 3 woman in general is sexually assaulted? So the army is no different from the rest of the population by that count.

Christ the Redeemer · 30-07-2013 09:50PM

karma_ wrote: »

Obama should immediately pardon him. Although, being the massive disappointment that he is I just can't see that happening.

You only get pardoned in America for trivial things like bringing drugs into the country or selling weapons to terrorists.

willmunny1990 · 30-07-2013 09:51PM

Macumazan wrote: »

He is a hero, he exposed scandals almost on a par with PRISM.

And do you think this will change anything?

The U.S will continue being corrupt, the army will continue to commit atrocities world wide and poor Bradley will most likely be spending the rest of his days in a cell, and for what? Nothing.

Jonny7 · 30-07-2013 09:52PM

Macumazan wrote: »

Oh to be so young and so naive.... :-)

That's a bit naive in itself. The US and NATO have a microscope pointed at them, and rightly so, but there is no policy of murder, killing children, torture (questionable under Rumsfeld, but presently), internal rape and rape of innocents/prisoners

Only a neglect of that policy, for which many have been prosecuted.

As bad as it is, this is still light years ahead of most armies in the world who are or have been engaged in action.

Sand · 30-07-2013 09:55PM

bumper234 wrote: »

So why are those helicopter pilots not in jail?

Because it wasn't a provable crime.

Courts of any kind (military or otherwise) tend to have a higher requirement on evidence than a lynch mob. This has disappointed many over time, but its generally been settled on as better than the alternatives.

So why has Bush not been investigated and charged with war crimes?

See above. You would have to prove, in a court of law, that Bush knowingly planned and carried out a warcrime. Not just that you think he's a bad guy.

Despite a lot of anger about Bush, no one has been able to put together a legally provable case - and the burden is very high. I remember the palpable relief when Slobodan Milošević died in the midst of his trial as it was proving very, very hard to demonstrate that Milosevic was guilty of planning or carrying out warcrimes. And that would have seemed an open and shut case.

Sand · 30-07-2013 10:00PM

MonaPizza wrote: »

You don't seem to know much about the law and are quite frankly making it up as you go along. Whistleblowers are protected. Manning didn't pass secrets on to "the enemy", whoever that is.

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.

bumper234 · 30-07-2013 10:01PM

Sand wrote: »

Because it wasn't a provable crime.

Courts of any kind (military or otherwise) tend to have a higher requirement on evidence than a lynch mob. This has disappointed many over time, but its generally been settled on as better than the alternatives.

Yeah cos 27 minutes of video evidence and their voices is not enough. They never got convicted because then the American government and military would have to admit to the murder of innocents. It still goes on today but now they use drones to kill innocent children instead of Apache helicopters.

30-07-2013 10:03PM

bumper234 wrote: »

He is a hero outside of the US

And to many within.

bumper234 · 30-07-2013 10:04PM

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.

Of course it wasn't. It's only whistleblowing when it suits the American government. As i sad before if Manning or Snowdon were Chinese, Russian Iranian or North Korean they would have been paraded on TV by the US government for the world to see. They would have been called hero for exposing this shocking behaviour by the governments.

Jonny7 · 30-07-2013 10:05PM

bumper234 wrote: »

but now they use drones to kill innocent children instead of Apache helicopters.

Whether you agree or not with the US fighting militants in NW Pakistan, they are making every effort not to kill innocents.

Zebra3 · 30-07-2013 10:08PM

Sand wrote: »

See above. You would have to prove, in a court of law, that Bush knowingly planned and carried out a warcrime. Not just that you think he's a bad guy.

Despite a lot of anger about Bush, no one has been able to put together a legally provable case - and the burden is very high. I remember the palpable relief when Slobodan Milošević died in the midst of his trial as it was proving very, very hard to demonstrate that Milosevic was guilty of planning or carrying out warcrimes. And that would have seemed an open and shut case.

It is a war crime to invade another country that has not attacked you.

Bush ordered the invasions of two countries, neither of which attacked the US. They are war crimes. There has been no investigation in to those crimes.

The Afghan government after a request from the US to hand over suspects related to 9/11 asked for evidence. The US refused to offer any and then invaded.

Iraq, despite previously being heavily armed by the US during its aggressive war with Iran and while carrying out genocide on its own civilians, done nothing that can justify the US led attack under international law.

Bush is a criminal, Manning is not.

bumper234 · 30-07-2013 10:09PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Whether you agree or not with the US fighting militants in NW Pakistan, they are making every effort not to kill innocents.

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.

Zebra3 · 30-07-2013 10:11PM

If a Russian or Chinese soldier had done what Manning did, the US would be proclaiming him as a hero.

bumper234 · 30-07-2013 10:13PM

Sand wrote: »

Because it wasn't a provable crime.

Courts of any kind (military or otherwise) tend to have a higher requirement on evidence than a lynch mob. This has disappointed many over time, but its generally been settled on as better than the alternatives.

"On several occasions, the Apache gunner appears to fire rounds into people after there is evidence that they have either died or are suffering from debilitating wounds. The rules of engagement and the law of armed combat do not permit combatants to shoot at people who are surrendering or who no longer pose a threat because of their injuries. What about the people in the van who had come to assist the struggling man on the ground? The Geneva conventions state that protections must be afforded to people who 'collect and care for the wounded, whether friend or foe.'"

Pretty provable by the video i reckon

StinkyMunkey · 30-07-2013 10:13PM

Whether or not you agree with what he did, really doesnt matter. He leaked confidential information online. The moral of the story is, if you air a governments dirty laundry in public, they will come after you, regardless of who thinks its right and wrong.

There isnt a government on the planet that doesnt have their dirty little secrets (granted some more or bigger than others). Anyone who thinks the world is a fair and noble place is either very naive or stupid.

Snowden is a marked man, the states wont stop till they get him as well. He will be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life.

As far as im concerned, i could care less about he knows about what i do online. Everything i do, i do of my own free will, if it comes back to bite me in the ass, im not gonna start whinging about it.

Do the crime, be prepared to do the time (people are only sorry when they get caught). Manning knew what he was doing would land him in hot water, that was his choice to make. He will more than likely spend the rest of his life in jail for letting people know what we already do, that no government is without corruption.

Sand · 30-07-2013 10:19PM

Zebra3 wrote: »

Bush is a criminal, Manning is not.

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.

Cookie_Monster · 30-07-2013 10:23PM

bumper234 wrote: »

If Manning or Snowdon had been from Russia, China, Iran North Korea the American government would have been shouting from the rooftops about how these brave heroes where just trying to let the world know about the despotic things that their governments had done.

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.

MonaPizza · 30-07-2013 10:24PM

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.

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.

A fcukup? Violating the Geneva Protocols by firing on civilians and press personnel and then further violating those conventions by attacking those who come to the aid of the wounded...you call this a "fcukup"? What kind of person ARE you? Where do you draw the line? It's ok for you to watch a gunship crew mow down a bunch of civilians. It's even nicer for you to watch them riddle to chopmeat a guy and his children trying to drag the bloodied and shatteredto safety and you have a problem with a guy who had a problem with this? Not only that but two us soldiers on the ground witnessed an Abrams tank speeding over a dying man cutting him in half and you're just fine with that? Those two soldiers said that this was a daily occurrence. They even wrote letters of apology to the man whose kids were machine-gunned to pieces by the helicopter. No charges ever brought against the perpertrators of your so called "fcukup" just gutless condemnation of the guy who was so sickened that he exposed the carnage. And your best argument is that he "helped the enemy"

Manning found guilty in 20 of 21 charges

Comments