Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Bradley Manning gets 35 years

24567…16

Comments

  • #32
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    gobnaitolunacy wrote: »
    I don't think the US military are picky about the grade of cannon fodder.

    Network and IT guys are canon fodder now?


  • #33
    super_furry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,387 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    Sounds a bit like the girls in Peru.......but he knew what he was doing.......

    In fairness while he knew what he was doing, he fully believed it was the right thing to do and that his actions would have a positive impact. Those girls in Peru, well the courts will decide in time, but you can be sure there was nothing altruistic behind what they did.


  • #34
    Oink
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 2,163 Mod ✭✭✭✭Oink


    humanji wrote: »
    I wouldn't really classify Manning as a whistleblower. He released a shed load of information without fully knowing what it contained. Any whistles that were blown were purely coincidental.

    All in all he just comes across as a guy who isn't the sharpest, and who is being used as a scapegoat by Assange and the US government.

    +1

    He clearly has issues. What kind of plan was that? "I'll just piss off the CIA/NSA/FBI/Obama all in one go, and sure it'll be grand, we'll play it by ear after that" ???
    EDIT: That's borderline Darwin Awards territory isn't it?


  • #35
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    35 years has to be considered a good result for him. Hopefully there's a good chance of parole or even pardon before 2045 (sounds insane) though.


  • #36
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Oink wrote: »
    +1

    He clearly has issues. What kind of plan was that? "I'll just piss off the CIA/NSA/FBI/Obama all in one go, and sure it'll be grand, we'll play it by ear after that" ???
    EDIT: That's borderline Darwin Awards territory isn't it?


    ...confiding in anonymous feckers over the internet didn't help him either.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    Sounds a bit like the girls in Peru.......but he knew what he was doing.......

    I don't think anyone could justify the act of drug smuggling. Releasing information about war crimes on the other hand can definitely be commended.

    Seems an unfair world when the second crime warrants a heavier prison sentence.


  • #38
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,246 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    NiallSparky wrote: »
    I don't think anyone could justify the act of drug smuggling. Releasing information about war crimes on the other hand can definitely be commended.

    Seems an unfair world when the second crime warrants a heavier prison sentence.


    Innocent until proven guilty and all that......


  • #39
    Zirconia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 386 ✭✭Zirconia
    Boycott Israeli Goods & Services


    I wonder if the US would do a deal to free him if Assange offered to take his place? I'm sure Julian would be glad to volunteer /s


  • #40
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Before some smart arse says "Who?" -


    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning


    A link would've helped OP, would've saved me having to Google who or what you were talking about.


  • #41
    kkelly77
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,673 ✭✭✭kkelly77




    And not one Apache helicopter pilot/gunner were charged with murder that day


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,246 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Before some smart arse says "Who?" -


    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning


    A link would've helped OP, would've saved me having to Google who or what you were talking about.


    Not trying to be smart, but I assumed that people would know who he is......its been a huge story in recent years.


  • #43
    Christ the Redeemer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 463 ✭✭Christ the Redeemer


    He should have just outed CIA agents or sold weapons to terrorists. You get a presidential pardon for that


  • #44
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Zirconia wrote: »
    I wonder if the US would do a deal to free him if Assange offered to take his place? I'm sure Julian would be glad to volunteer /s

    Assange is a know-nothing, know-it-all....to quote Homer Simpson.

    He's happy just kicking back, eating fajitas in the ecuadorian embassy.


  • #45
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    Innocent until proven guilty and all that......

    All I said was that drug smuggling is morally worse than exposing war crimes, you made your assumptions.


  • #46
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Well its the best possible result he could have gotten. He could be out in less than 10 years from now. The information that he released put people in danger and he should be punished for such actions regardless if people believe what he did was right or wrong.


  • #47
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    Not trying to be smart, but I assumed that people would know who he is......its been a huge story in recent years.


    I know you're not trying to be smart OP, I was just suggesting, genuinely didn't cop who he was until I googled, and usually in these threads about people, some smart arse always says "Who?".

    On topic: I AM actually surprised at the leniency of the sentence given his position and the fact that what he did amounted to treason, especially with the US Government so keen to drill it home to it's citizens about their "War on Terror". I'm surprised he wasn't made more of an example and given some silly sentence like 99 years or something.


  • #48
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Jester252 wrote: »
    Well its the best possible result he could have gotten. He could be out in less than 10 years from now. The information that he released put people in danger and he should be punished for such actions regardless if people believe what he did was right or wrong.

    The Taliban went on a spree after the leaks hunting the named informants and elders


  • #49
    y0ssar1an22
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 21,581 ✭✭✭✭y0ssar1an22


    Did he leak the vids of the US soldiers shooting all the civilians....if so what is happening to them?


  • #50
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    The Taliban went on a spree after the leaks hunting the named informants and elders

    Manning didn't publish them. The Guardian, the New York Times, El Pais and Der Spiegel did. How come there's been no backlash against them?


  • #51
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    y0ssar1an22 wrote: »
    Did he leak the vids of the US soldiers shooting all the civilians....if so what is happening to them?

    Yes. It was decided that it wasn't appropriate to take any significant action against them.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,932 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    y0ssar1an22 wrote: »
    Did he leak the vids of the US soldiers shooting all the civilians....if so what is happening to them?

    Nothing.

    Distasteful though it may have been, that doesn't make it unlawful, which is the only way they can be successfully charged.

    People who haven't really delved into the details don't realize that the laws of war provide a lot of latitude, often more than people of today are comfortable with. Interestingly, I have also seen very little push towards a revision of the laws of war, which haven't been significantly updated in over 60 years. I guess the average citizenry just don't care enough to demand it.


  • #53
    y0ssar1an22
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 21,581 ✭✭✭✭y0ssar1an22


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    People who haven't really delved into the details don't realize that the laws of war provide a lot of latitude, often more than people of today are comfortable with. Interestingly, I have also seen very little push towards a revision of the laws of war, which haven't been significantly updated in over 60 years. I guess the average citizenry just don't care enough to demand it.


    maybe they should go back to the old school american civil war fighting style. whoever wants to be involved can line up in front of each other and see who the last man standing is.

    at least it will keep civilians safe


  • #54
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    y0ssar1an22 wrote: »
    Did he leak the vids of the US soldiers shooting all the civilians....if so what is happening to them?

    If every engagement was filmed and released - we wouldn't have wars in this world.

    Sadly, persecuting the pilots and gunners in this case, would probably mean the military just stripping out any cameras or recording equipment.

    A lot of bad **** went down in Iraq, but no other war is any different. Just be glad it is at least under the microscope.


  • #55
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Nothing.

    Distasteful though it may have been, that doesn't make it unlawful, which is the only way they can be successfully charged.

    People who haven't really delved into the details don't realize that the laws of war provide a lot of latitude, often more than people of today are comfortable with. Interestingly, I have also seen very little push towards a revision of the laws of war, which haven't been significantly updated in over 60 years. I guess the average citizenry just don't care enough to demand it.


    As long as it's not being used against them (them being whoever) no-one either cares, or cares to know.


  • #56
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Jester252 wrote: »
    The information that he released put people in danger

    can you cite an example of this?


  • #57
    y0ssar1an22
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 21,581 ✭✭✭✭y0ssar1an22


    Links234 wrote: »
    can you cite an example of this?

    I'm guessing he put US soldiers in danger...however seeing as they were in the middle of a war on foreign soil that is a bit redundant.


  • #58
    cherryghost
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 17,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭cherryghost


    **** the American Government.


  • #59
    Hawkeye1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 76 ✭✭Hawkeye1


    A serial killer wouldnt get 35 years in Ireland!


  • #60
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    NiallSparky wrote: »
    Manning didn't publish them. The Guardian, the New York Times, El Pais and Der Spiegel did. How come there's been no backlash against them?

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    humanji wrote: »
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow

    Yeah, I've been following that quite a bit. They don't have the guts to legally go after those high up in the newspapers who sanctioned the publications.


Advertisement
Advertisement