Pvt. Manning pleads guilty to one of the charges

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Pvt. Manning pleads guilty to one of the charges

Fire: Aug 26, 2002; As for myself I am a 28 year old special ed teacher from Jacksonville. Ironically, I myself also have asperger's syndrome. I'm a gamer, both video games and also tabletop role-playing games. I have an interest in science fiction, fantasy, and horror.

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/...manning_says_he

quote:

AMY GOODMAN: For the first time, 25-year-old U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning has admitted to being the source behind the largest leak of state secrets in U.S. history. More than a thousand days after he was arrested, Manning testified Thursday before a military court. He said he leaked the classified documents to the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks in order to show the American public the "true costs of war."

Reading for over an hour from a 35-page statement, Manning said, quote, "I believed that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information ... this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general." He added, quote, "I believed that these cables would not damage the United States. However, I believed these cables would be embarrassing." He said he took the information to WikiLeaks only after he was rebuffed by The Washington Post and The New York Times.

At the pretrial hearing at Fort Meade military base in Maryland, Manning pleaded guilty to reduced charges on 10 counts, which carry a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. But even if the judge accepts the plea, prosecutors can still pursue a court-martial on the remaining 12 charges. The most serious of those is aiding the enemy and carries a possible life sentence.

Over the course of the hearing, Bradley Manning took responsibility for leaking the so-called "Collateral Murder" video of an Apache helicopter attack in Iraq; some U.S. diplomatic cables, including one of the early WikiLeaks publications, the Reykjavik cable; portions of the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs; some of the files on detainees in Guantánamo; and two intelligence memos.

For more, we’re joined by Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, lawyer for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. He has just returned from attending that pretrial hearing last night for Bradley Manning.

Michael Ratner, welcome back to Democracy Now! Well, this is explosive. Bradley Manning stands in court and accepts responsibility for releasing the documents, says he is guilty of doing that.

MICHAEL RATNER: It was one of the more moving days I’ve ever spent in a courtroom. You’ve heard from Bradley Manning once before, which was when he testified about the torture that happened to him. I was crying through that. This was amazing. I mean, he actually didn’t stand; he sat at the defense table. And he read his 35-page statement, which, sadly, we do not have a copy of, even though there’s nothing classified about that statement. And hopefully we’ll get it, because that is something that should be taught in every school in America.

He went through each of the releases that he took responsibility for, that you mentioned on the air, and he told us why he did it. And in each case, you saw a 22-year-old, a 23-year-old, a person of incredible conscience, saying, "What I’m seeing the United States do is utterly wrong. It’s immoral. The way they’re killing people in Iraq, targeting people for death, rather than working with the population, this is wrong." And in each of these—each of these statements tells you about how he was doing it politically.

AMY GOODMAN: Remind us of how he did this. He was actually serving in Iraq as a soldier.

MICHAEL RATNER: Yes, he was a soldier. He was in—and he goes through that in his statement. He’s an intelligence analyst. And one of the things he worked with, what were called "significant activities reports," which are the daily logs of what’s happening in Iraq and, attached to it, of course, in Afghanistan. And as he read those, I think he became appalled by what he saw: the killings, the targeted assassinations, the fact that people didn’t want the United States there, the fact that we weren’t really helping the country or helping individuals. And he said he wanted to lift the fog of war from it. And he got in touch with various organizations, including WikiLeaks. And that, he talks about. He talks about that. And—

AMY GOODMAN: Explain. He actually said he didn’t go to WikiLeaks first.

MICHAEL RATNER: No, that’s correct. He first—he had these documents on a disk that he eventually took out of—took out of the special secure room. He actually came to the United States with it. That’s the Iraq war logs and the Afghan war logs. And he tried to get it to The New York Times and The Washington Post. He calls up The Washington Post, has a five-minute discussion with somebody there.

AMY GOODMAN: Does he know who?

MICHAEL RATNER: He doesn’t recall who, or at least didn’t say it. He doesn’t take it—he said they don’t take him seriously, and then he feels he can’t get that. He calls the public editor at The New York Times and leaves a message on the answering machine of the public editor and doesn’t get a call back. He’s then thinking about : "How am I going to get this critical information out? Because I think what the U.S. is doing should be debated in the United States. We’re killing people without cause, essentially."

And then, he has already known about WikiLeaks, because he was aware of WikiLeaks in part because of their release of the text messages or the SMSes from the World Trade Center phones that were there on 9/11. So he’s aware of WikiLeaks. He’s in some communication, by chat or otherwise, with WikiLeaks. And they point him to a site where he can upload, upload the documents.

One interesting point on that is what he mentions about WikiLeaks. Some papers have reported that he said he believes he was in communication with Julian Assange. He actually says it could have been Julian Assange, it could have been someone he calls "Daniel Schmitt," which is probably Daniel Domscheit-Berg from Germany. And he says—and it also says it could have been someone high up in WikiLeaks. He really doesn’t know. And he says, "Whatever I did in this case, I did because I wanted to do it. I was not pressured to do it. I made the decision to do it." So he tries these other media, and ultimately he sees that WikiLeaks has a way of uploading documents that’s anonymous, that he doesn’t know who’s on the other end, and they don’t know who’s on his end.

AMY GOODMAN: He also said he was motivated by the Reuters FOIAs, right? Freedom of the Information Act requests to get the—what came to be known as the "Collateral Murder" video.

MICHAEL RATNER: I mean, when we can get the transcript and put out the quotes of what he said, on that "Collateral Murder" video, which he saw the Reuters journalists killed, then he saw them attack the van that was trying to rescue people, in which children were injured, and he said, "What I heard them say in that helicopter as they were shooting was incredible bloodlust." "Bloodlust," that’s what he said.

AMY GOODMAN: During that pretrial hearing on Wednesday, let’s talk about this, Michael. Bradley Manning spoke about the "Collateral Murder" video of an Apache helicopter attack in Iraq and admitted for the first time being the source of the leaked tape. Manning said, quote, "The most alarming aspect of the video to me was the seemingly delightful bloodlust the aerial weapons team happened to have." He added, the soldiers’ actions, quote, "seemed similar to a child torturing ants with a magnifying glass," describing the video as "war porn," saying the crew’s "lack of concern for human life" and "concern for injured children at the scene" greatly bothered him. So, this is the video—it was shot July 12th, 2007—that Manning referenced. It shows U.S. forces killing 12 people, including two Reuters employees. Now, this video is taken by the U.S. military Apache helicopter. It is the camera that’s mounted within the helicopter. You hear the soldiers in the helicopter joking, cursing. And it is showing a target on the men who are walking in an area of Baghdad known as New Baghdad below. Among them, an up-and-coming Reuters videographer named Namir Noor-Eldeen and his driver, Saeed Chmagh.

U.S. SOLDIER 1: I have individuals with weapons.

U.S. SOLDIER 2: You’re clear.

U.S. SOLDIER 1: Alright, firing.

U.S. SOLDIER 3: Let me know when you’ve got them.

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Let’s shoot. Light ’em all up.

U.S. SOLDIER 1: Come on, fire!

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Keep shootin’. Keep shootin’. Keep shootin’. Keep shootin’.

U.S. SOLDIER 4: Hotel, Bushmaster two-six, Bushmaster two-six, we need to move, time now!

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Alright, we just engaged all eight individuals.

AMY GOODMAN: Reuters driver Saeed Chmagh survived that initial attack. He’s seen trying to crawl away as the helicopter flies overhead. U.S. forces open fire again when they see a van pulling up. The van comes to evacuate the wounded, like Saeed Chmagh.

U.S. SOLDIER 2: The bodies.

U.S. SOLDIER 1: Where’s that van at?

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Right down there by the bodies.

U.S. SOLDIER 1: OK, yeah.

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Bushmaster, Crazy Horse. We have individuals going to the scene, looks like possibly picking up bodies and weapons.

U.S. SOLDIER 1: Let me engage. Can I shoot?

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Roger. Break. Crazy Horse one-eight, request permission to engage.

U.S. SOLDIER 3: Picking up the wounded?

U.S. SOLDIER 1: Yeah, we’re trying to get permission to engage. Come on, let us shoot!

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Bushmaster, Crazy Horse one-eight.

U.S. SOLDIER 1: They’re taking him.

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Bushmaster, Crazy Horse one-eight.

U.S. SOLDIER 4: This is Bushmaster seven, go ahead.

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Roger. We have a black SUV—or Bongo truck picking up the bodies. Request permission to engage.

U.S. SOLDIER 4: Bushmaster seven, roger. This is Bushmaster seven, roger. Engage.

U.S. SOLDIER 2: One-eight, engage. Clear.

U.S. SOLDIER 1: Come on!

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Clear. Clear.

U.S. SOLDIER 1: We’re engaging.

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Coming around. Clear.

U.S. SOLDIER 1: Roger. Trying to—

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Clear.

U.S. SOLDIER 1: I hear ’em—I lost ’em in the dust.

U.S. SOLDIER 3: I got ’em.

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Should have a van in the middle of the road with about 12 to 15 bodies.

U.S. SOLDIER 1: Oh yeah, look at that. Right through the windshield! Ha ha!

AMY GOODMAN: That is the video that WikiLeaks, when releasing it, dubbed "Collateral Murder," of the July 12, 2007, attack. In that van, by the way, were two children who were critically wounded. Saeed Chmagh was killed. That is the video that we played first when it was released and also interviewed Julian Assange at the time here in the United States, interestingly. Michael Ratner with us, who is Julian Assange’s attorney. So this video Bradley Manning got in downloading, because it’s a U.S. military video, that Reuters, which had asked repeatedly for it, never got until WikiLeaks released it, to know the last seconds of their employees’ lives.

MICHAEL RATNER: Not only did Reuters never get it, Amy, CENTCOM, which is I guess the central part of the Army, basically said, "We don’t think we have the video." And yet, everybody that was in the room with Bradley Manning, everybody knew about the video. It was one of many, many videos. He says in this video—and he said it in court—he said, "What was amazing is, when they—after they hurt these children in the van," he said, "they showed no remorse for the children. And when they saw someone crawling on the ground, they said, 'I hope he picks up a gun,' essentially, 'because we can kill him then.'" So, these people—this was really here a 22- or 23-year-old man watching this. Most people would have said, "Well, I’ll just get through the Army, and that’ll be it." He didn’t, and he’s a hero for that, because what he did is he acted on his moral conscience, and he exposed what the—the war crimes the U.S. was doing.

AMY GOODMAN: So, what does this mean right now? Bradley Manning has pleaded guilty to uploading the largest trove of state secrets in U.S. history to WikiLeaks, which then released them. What does he face exactly?

MICHAEL RATNER: Well, he faces a possible 20 years in prison. But the problem here, military is different than our regular courts in the U.S., which is to say that the plea does not have to be accepted by the government or by the judge—

AMY GOODMAN: So why would he have agreed to plead guilty?

MICHAEL RATNER: —or by the prosecutor, really. He did what’s called a "naked plea." His hope, I think, is that when the government sees this and also the support he’ll get for acknowledging what he did and also the reasons and the moral reasons why he did it and the political reasons he did it, that the government won’t go on and try and prove aiding the enemy and the more serious espionage charges. What he really pleaded to was doing actions that were prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the military, by giving documents to someone not authorized or a group not authorized to get them. So he faces 20 years. I think he did it because he was otherwise facing, and he still could be facing, life imprisonment, if not the death penalty. So they’re trying to figure out—

AMY GOODMAN: Because? Life imprisonment for?

MICHAEL RATNER: For espionage, as well as the death penalty.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, what about this charge, aiding the enemy?

MICHAEL RATNER: Well, that’s the—

AMY GOODMAN: What is the case for it?

MICHAEL RATNER: Well, that’s the craziest. I mean, that’s just saying, because he gave documents to WikiLeaks and they were published by WikiLeaks — and they were published by The New York Times, I should say, and The Guardian and Der Spiegel — that al-Qaeda read those documents, and therefore WikiLeaks was essentially the transmittal means he used to get documents to al-Qaeda. So that the enemy there is al-Qaeda; some would say the enemy is even WikiLeaks, according to the U.S. government. But that’s the claim. It seems like a completely spurious, ridiculous claim. You can go after The New York Times for that every time it publishes and someone from a, quote, "terrorist" group reads those documents. So it’s a nonsensical claim.

But he was facing life. And he made this statement that—you know, I just want to say that whatever people’s images were of Bradley Manning from the newspapers, which have reported on this, you know, disturbed human being, this disturbed individual, this man gave a political statement that should be read, I think, by every American and should certainly be taught in every one of our schools on what the moral obligations are of people in the military to stop, really, a killing machine of the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: And what does this mean for Julian Assange? You’re his attorney. You were just recently there once again in London in the Ecuadorean embassy, where he is holed up and granted political asylum by Ecuador but can’t leave the embassy or Britain, the British authorities, will arrest him. The significance of this, Julian Assange, who believes the grand jury empaneled here could indict him for espionage and is afraid of being extradited here?

MICHAEL RATNER: Well, there are two things that came out. One is, I would say that Bradley Manning’s testimony put WikiLeaks and Julian Assange in the same place that The New York Times would be or The Guardian, which is to say he gave documents or uploaded them to a website that is the equivalent of—you know, with The New York Times getting information about warrantless wiretapping from someone in the U.S. National Security Agency. So I think, in that sense, it tells us that the U.S. should get off his back, that Julian Assange should be getting the support of The New York Times and The Guardian and Der Spiegel, which used all of these—which used all of these documents. So I think it’s actually, in that sense, helpful to Julian Assange.

On the other hand, there were two people who were identified to me as members—as lawyers on the grand jury that’s sitting in—that’s sitting in Virginia. Two of the prosecuting attorneys were there in the court.

AMY GOODMAN: Yesterday, at the pretrial hearing of Bradley Manning.

MICHAEL RATNER: Yes, yes, yes.

AMY GOODMAN: So they’re there, and you’re there, Assange’s attorney.

MICHAEL RATNER: They’re there, and I’m there. I didn’t have a chance to meet them, because they don’t come out and mix with the rest of us. They’re on the government’s side with—surrounded by camouflaged people. But they were there. And so, that tells us that that grand jury is still active and going on, and that they are still after Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. When I say "they," the U.S. government. But for some reason, they’re thinking they can distinguish that from The New York Times and The Guardian. I don’t think they can. And I think it’s—you know, to me, it’s outrageous that The New York Times and The Guardian have not supported one of the people they worked with in revealing these documents.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Michael Ratner, I want to thank you for being with us, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, lawyer for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, returned last night from attending the pretrial hearing for Bradley Manning, who has been in detention now for more than 1,000 days.

I don't know about you but it was news to me that they had taken it to the New York Times and the Washington Post and was ignored. I've said before that I think Manning is a hero and the fact that our American mainstream media has mostly ignored the opportunity to have this debate about our role in the world shows where their loyalties lie.

I also really agree with Manning how we look on the people of these countries as a kid torturing ants with a magnifying glass. Its a shame that there is a very good chance he will be in jail forever.

# ? Mar 2, 2013 04:07

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2013 12:16

Hodgepodge: Jan 29, 2006; of course!

Fire posted:

I also really agree with Manning how we look on the people of these countries as a kid torturing ants with a magnifying glass. Its a shame that there is a very good chance he will be in jail forever.

It's not just a shame. It's sheer madness to hold that what Manning did was wrong and at the same time hold that WWII-era Germans or anyone else given an immoral order had a responsibility to disobey.

I'm torn between dismay at the sheer apathy and cynicism of our social institutions when it comes to anything other than their own convenience and the utmost regard for people like Manning who do hold and act according to principles.

# ? Mar 2, 2013 05:24

Volcott: Mar 30, 2010

There were ways to voice his concerns within the chain of command. He instead chose to commit treason. He should consider himself fortunate to be looking at life in prison rather than a firing squad.

# ? Mar 2, 2013 05:44

Caros: May 14, 2008

Volcott posted:

There were ways to voice his concerns within the chain of command. He instead chose to commit treason. He should consider himself fortunate to be looking at life in prison rather than a firing squad.

Indeed! He could in fact voice his concerns up the chain of command. This would have an effect somewhere between poo poo and all. It would have had the same effect if he started yelling that we were murdering thousands of people at a wall.

Bradley Manning revealed information that was embarrassing to the US government because much of the information showed that they were doing terrible loving things. Simply telling someone else in the army would have accomplished nothing, because guess what, his bosses were the people ordering people to do, or looking away from people who were doing those terrible loving things!

# ? Mar 2, 2013 05:57

Fire: Aug 26, 2002; As for myself I am a 28 year old special ed teacher from Jacksonville. Ironically, I myself also have asperger's syndrome. I'm a gamer, both video games and also tabletop role-playing games. I have an interest in science fiction, fantasy, and horror.

Volcott posted:

There were ways to voice his concerns within the chain of command. He instead chose to commit treason. He should consider himself fortunate to be looking at life in prison rather than a firing squad.

It only treason if you give it to the enemy. He gave it to the public. It was classified not because it was some secret that would get people killed but because it was politically embarrassing. We have a foreign policy and a military that does things that are illegal with impunity and reporting it to that same military does absolutely nothing. We have a right to know and to object to the immoral, unethical, and illegal things that are done in our name.

# ? Mar 2, 2013 06:02

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Volcott posted:

There were ways to voice his concerns within the chain of command. He instead chose to commit treason. He should consider himself fortunate to be looking at life in prison rather than a firing squad.

Please explain why uncovering things such as the US military killing news reporters is a deed that deserves the fire squad?

# ? Mar 2, 2013 06:04

A Bag of Milk: Jul 3, 2007; I don't see any American dream; I see an American nightmare.

Volcott posted:

There were ways to voice his concerns within the chain of command. He instead chose to commit treason. He should consider himself fortunate to be looking at life in prison rather than a firing squad.

Treason is a moral good when your country has invaded a sovereign nation and is slaughtering its citizens. I agree that he should expect nothing less than 20 years, but the fact that he knew that and probably knew he was going to get tortured just makes him more courageous and inspiring in my eyes.

# ? Mar 2, 2013 06:06

Mans: Sep 14, 2011

Volcott posted:

There were ways to voice his concerns within the chain of command. He instead chose to commit treason. He should consider himself fortunate to be looking at life in prison rather than a firing squad.

So you're admiting the U.S. military considers the public as an enemy?

# ? Mar 2, 2013 06:17

Volcott: Mar 30, 2010

Mans posted:

So you're admiting the U.S. military considers the public as an enemy?

Releasing a document on the internet makes it available to everyone. In the world.

That includes the bad guys.

Things are classified for a reason.

# ? Mar 2, 2013 06:23

Enjoy: Apr 18, 2009

Volcott posted:

Releasing a document on the internet makes it available to everyone. In the world.

That includes the bad guys.

Things are classified for a reason.

If murdering people makes you a bad guy, I guess the American leadership are the real bad guys

# ? Mar 2, 2013 06:25

The Insect Court: Nov 22, 2012

Volcott posted:

Releasing a document on the internet makes it available to everyone. In the world.

That includes the bad guys.

Things are classified for a reason.

quote:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

There were certainly ways for Manning to be a whistle-blower without leaking every diplomatic cable he could get his hands on, and he does deserve prison time for that. But there's just no way his actions can reasonably be termed treason, unless you think Daniel Ellsberg should have gotten a firing squad. If releasing onto the public internet secret information that can be used by America's enemies constitutes treason, did the New York Times commit treason when it revealed the existence of a secret drone base in Saudi Arabia?

Enjoy posted:

If murdering people makes you a bad guy, I guess the American leadership are the real bad guys

The profundity and subtlety of your grasp of both ethics and geopolitics is truly breathtaking.

# ? Mar 2, 2013 06:31

Hodgepodge: Jan 29, 2006; of course!

In this case, the reason being that it would embarrass officers and politicians.

I'm not really sure why I'd say more. Your rap sheet indicates a troll, not someone who is sincerely wrong.

# ? Mar 2, 2013 06:31

Volcott: Mar 30, 2010

Hodgepodge posted:

In this case, the reason being that it would embarrass officers and politicians.

I'm not really sure why I'd say more. Your rap sheet indicates a troll, not someone who is sincerely wrong.

This isn't a topic where one can be wrong, sincerely or otherwise. As far as the case is concerned, existing law will be interpreted and a judgment will be reached. You and I, we're just guys with opinions. One man's freedom fighter and all that.

# ? Mar 2, 2013 06:39

No Wave: Sep 18, 2005

Volcott posted:

Releasing a document on the internet makes it available to everyone. In the world.

That includes the bad guys.

Things are classified for a reason.

What if they're classified for a bad reason?

# ? Mar 2, 2013 06:43

Volcott: Mar 30, 2010

Who's to decide what's a good reason and what's a bad one?

# ? Mar 2, 2013 06:45

G. Hosafat: Apr 16, 2003

You and me and everyone else?

# ? Mar 2, 2013 06:46

Volcott: Mar 30, 2010

G. Hosafat posted:

You and me and everyone else?

An institution can't conduct business if it's every action is up for debate by the public. Especially not an institution where a degree of secrecy is necessary to avoid getting your employees killed. The military has internal mechanisms for deciding what can and cannot safely be shared with the public. To an extent, we just have to trust them. The alternative would be chaos.

# ? Mar 2, 2013 06:53

Red_Mage: Jul 23, 2007; I should probably keep to posting about grognards in TGD, because when I discuss actual real-world politics with people who know what they're talking about, it becomes clear that I have trouble seeing things without a ruleset and character sheets.

The Insect Court posted:

There were certainly ways for Manning to be a whistle-blower without leaking every diplomatic cable he could get his hands on, and he does deserve prison time for that. But there's just no way his actions can reasonably be termed treason, unless you think Daniel Ellsberg should have gotten a firing squad. If releasing onto the public internet secret information that can be used by America's enemies constitutes treason, did the New York Times commit treason when it revealed the existence of a secret drone base in Saudi Arabia?

Well it depends on who's definition of treason you are using. The UCMJ has a rather lengthy definition of ~~Treason~~ espionage which encompasses treason, and depending on his intent he actually may have committed it. Legally he could well deserve the death penalty. Morally he may well have been completely justified. Rule of Law is difficult like that sometimes.

Edit: Technically he'd just be guilty of espionage, for some reason treason is part of that.

Red_Mage fucked around with this message at Mar 2, 2013 around 07:04

# ? Mar 2, 2013 06:57

Enjoy: Apr 18, 2009

Red_Mage posted:

Well it depends on who's definition of treason you are using. The UCMJ has a rather lengthy definition of ~~Treason~~ espionage which encompasses treason, and depending on his intent he actually may have committed it. Legally he could well deserve the death penalty. Morally he may well have been completely justified. Rule of Law is difficult like that sometimes.

Edit: Technically he'd just be guilty of espionage, for some reason treason is part of that.

Rule of law requires oversight of executive functions like the military by an independent judiciary

# ? Mar 2, 2013 07:09

burf: Feb 1, 2005; Transaction Record:

Volcott posted:

An institution can't conduct business if it's every action is up for debate by the public. Especially not an institution where a degree of secrecy is necessary to avoid getting your employees killed. The military has internal mechanisms for deciding what can and cannot safely be shared with the public. To an extent, we just have to trust them. The alternative would be chaos.

And when that institution fails, as it did here, we should punish the person who rectifies the failure?

# ? Mar 2, 2013 07:13

Volcott: Mar 30, 2010

burf posted:

And when that institution fails, as it did here, we should punish the person who rectifies the failure?

You could argue that Manning did the wrong thing for the right reasons, but the end result is the same. He committed a crime.

# ? Mar 2, 2013 07:20

Enjoy: Apr 18, 2009

Volcott posted:

You could argue that Manning did the wrong thing for the right reasons, but the end result is the same. He committed a crime.

...And that's why we need to protest the criminality of his actions and seek to alter the law, I don't see how this concept is difficult to understand

# ? Mar 2, 2013 07:24

Volcott: Mar 30, 2010

Enjoy posted:

...And that's why we need to protest the criminality of his actions and seek to alter the law, I don't see how this concept is difficult to understand

There are reasons the sort of documents the good private released aren't. Good reasons. It can get people killed. It is illegal to do so, as it should be.

# ? Mar 2, 2013 07:31

Red_Mage: Jul 23, 2007; I should probably keep to posting about grognards in TGD, because when I discuss actual real-world politics with people who know what they're talking about, it becomes clear that I have trouble seeing things without a ruleset and character sheets.

Enjoy posted:

...And that's why we need to protest the criminality of his actions and seek to alter the law, I don't see how this concept is difficult to understand

How do you alter a law that says "it is illegal to make public classified information" without endangering thousands of lives? There is something commendable about the dedication to an informed voter base in a democracy, but the concept of a State Secret is practiced by every government and is generally accepted as a necessary sacrifice in even the most liberal democracies.

Bradley Manning broke a very very straightforward law, intentionally and with purpose. If you asked me if I thought Bradley Manning hurt anyone, I'd say no, I don't think he did, and hopefully that will be considered heavily when they look at sentencing, they obviously have already considered it somewhat because they are not pursuing the death penalty, something they could be.

# ? Mar 2, 2013 07:32

Enjoy: Apr 18, 2009

Volcott posted:

There are reasons the sort of documents the good private released aren't. Good reasons. It can get people killed.

You must mean the attacks on Americans that occur elsewhere in the world following public revelation of the gross abuses of power the American military gets up to and is protected in doing by the American government. One alternative to preventing these deaths is to stop the American military getting up to its abuses in the first place by publicising and denouncing them widely.

Red_Mage posted:

How do you alter a law that says "it is illegal to make public classified information" without endangering thousands of lives?

By rearranging the affairs of the government such that thousands of lives are not at stake (eg stop American imperialism)

# ? Mar 2, 2013 07:38

Omi-Polari: Oct 4, 2012

For me, Manning is a peculiar case because he didn't just leak a specific instance of a crime, as a whistleblower would. He leaked everything, including the names of confidential sources to the Taliban. Isn't that treason? It seems like he'd have a stronger defense of being a whistleblower if he had just leaked the Apache helicopter video.

Volcott posted:

An institution can't conduct business if it's every action is up for debate by the public. Especially not an institution where a degree of secrecy is necessary to avoid getting your employees killed. The military has internal mechanisms for deciding what can and cannot safely be shared with the public. To an extent, we just have to trust them. The alternative would be chaos.

The history behind this is pretty interesting. Post-9/11, U.S. intel consolidated a lot of disparate systems for storing intelligence that were previously compartmentalized and difficult to share. Manning had access to this system, and leaked everything, which seems like it'd be inevitable because you make it easier for people to do a big data-dump like this.

So I wonder if the government has shifted back to more compartmentalized systems. Which, by the way, would make it more difficult for whistleblowers to leak specific instances of wrongdoing. It makes the job of whistleblowers more complicated.

(Edit: Aren't there not whisteblower protection laws, as well? I wonder if he'd be legally shielded if he had just leaked the Apache video. A lot of documents he leaked, including the names of confidential informants, didn't actually expose any wrongdoing - this needs to be kept in mind.)

Omi-Polari fucked around with this message at Mar 2, 2013 around 07:56

# ? Mar 2, 2013 07:42

Tatum Girlparts: Sep 8, 2011; Do you think you can destroy me with your Nexus? I who served Thuganomics, I who commanded The Cenation, hundreds of years before you were on NXT?

Enjoy posted:

You must mean the attacks on Americans that occur elsewhere in the world following public revelation of the gross abuses of power the American military gets up to and is protected in doing by the American government. One alternative to preventing these deaths is to stop the American military getting up to its abuses in the first place by publicising and denouncing them widely.

By rearranging the affairs of the government such that thousands of lives are not at stake (eg stop American imperialism)

You do get that we'd have to go full isolationist, right? Like, no embassies or anything.

Manning's treatment is horrid but he did the right thing in basically the worst possible way. He didn't just release the illegal poo poo, he released everything he could, which included informant information and all. That's really hosed up, you can't release poo poo like that without knowing someone's most likely going to die.

If he just released the illegal killings we'd have something, but no, what he did was pretty legitimately bad.

# ? Mar 2, 2013 07:48

Enjoy: Apr 18, 2009

Tatum Girlparts posted:

You do get that we'd have to go full isolationist, right? Like, no embassies or anything.

Sometimes you have to not go on military intervention sprees to not make an omelette. Freedom isn't free.

# ? Mar 2, 2013 07:53

KomradeX: Oct 29, 2011

Manning is a latter day Daniel Ellsberg (as recognized by the still living Ellsberg,) the fact this country has fallen so far since the freaking 70s when it comes to this issues is really shocking. Legality does not always equal moral or hell even a good law. Why can't people understand that? Is this just another subset of a just world fallacy?

# ? Mar 2, 2013 07:58

Red_Mage: Jul 23, 2007; I should probably keep to posting about grognards in TGD, because when I discuss actual real-world politics with people who know what they're talking about, it becomes clear that I have trouble seeing things without a ruleset and character sheets.

Omi-Polari posted:

For me, Manning is a peculiar case because he didn't just leak a specific instance of a crime, as a whistleblower would. He leaked everything, including the names of confidential sources to the Taliban. Isn't that treason? It seems like he'd have a stronger defense of being a whistleblower if he had just leaked the Apache helicopter video.
...
(Edit: Aren't there not whisteblower protection laws, as well? I wonder if he'd be legally shielded if he had just leaked the Apache video. A lot of documents he leaked, including the names of confidential informants, didn't actually expose any wrongdoing - this needs to be kept in mind.)

Its complicated. Because Manning is a soldier it means that the UCMJ applies to him, which effectively means that a whistleblower laws cannot protect him. Had he resigned or been discharged before he leaked the documents he might have something maybe. I'd love it if we had a UCMJ expert explain some of this, because how the military courts and civilian laws interact is really weird.

It may or may not be treason, depending on who is prosecuting and how, but it certainly is espionage, which ties in closely to treason. The biggest thing about treason, from what I've gathered, is intent. Manning didn't intend to aid the U.S. enemies, he was just grossly negligent/indifferent to the fact that he was doing exactly that.

Enjoy posted:

By rearranging the affairs of the government such that thousands of lives are not at stake (eg stop American imperialism)

Oh I didn't realize this was just a soapbox for you. Good luck with arguing he should be innocent because the government is imperialist.

KomradeX posted:

Manning is a latter day Daniel Ellsberg (as recognized by the still living Ellsberg,) the fact this country has fallen so far since the freaking 70s when it comes to this issues is really shocking. Legality does not always equal moral or hell even a good law. Why can't people understand that? Is this just another subset of a just world fallacy?

He really isn't. Ellsberg didn't leak any information that could've gotten someone killed, and Ellsberg was a concerned citizen, not a soldier tasked with handling sensitive material. And perhaps the most damning thing, Manning knew what he did was illegal while he was doing it, and his motivation wasn't exactly noble.

You can argue that different rules shouldn't apply to the military or that rules should just be based on what you consider moral and not, but the reason people are talking about the legality of what he did is because people are raising the question of "did he do anything wrong."

Red_Mage fucked around with this message at Mar 2, 2013 around 08:06

# ? Mar 2, 2013 07:58

Enjoy: Apr 18, 2009

Red_Mage posted:

Oh I didn't realize this was just a soapbox for you. Good luck with arguing he should be innocent because the government is imperialist.

It's pretty simple, really. Governments wouldn't need to protect their hired killers if they didn't hire so many killers.

# ? Mar 2, 2013 08:02

KomradeX: Oct 29, 2011

Another thing people keep saying oh people could/died because of this, wheres the proof? In the years that this had been circling is the US military had definitive proof an informant had been killed because of this information they would have plastered it everywhere. This is of course assuming the US gives enough of a flying gently caress about their informants and isn't a cynical ploy by institutions that view them as replaceable parts to follow up with them after the leak .

# ? Mar 2, 2013 08:03

Omi-Polari: Oct 4, 2012

I don't think anyone died. But still, he exposed the names of confidential sources to the Taliban. Does it matter if the Taliban killed any of them or not? That's still pretty bad.

Red_Mage posted:

Its complicated. Because Manning is a soldier it means that the UCMJ applies to him, which effectively means that a whistleblower laws cannot protect him. Had he resigned or been discharged before he leaked the documents he might have something maybe. I'd love it if we had a UCMJ expert explain some of this, because how the military courts and civilian laws interact is really weird.

Hrm. What about the F-22 whistleblowers? (I have no idea how this works, just wondering.)

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...cted-air-force/

Omi-Polari fucked around with this message at Mar 2, 2013 around 08:30

# ? Mar 2, 2013 08:16

Maksamakkara: Jan 22, 2006

Red_Mage posted:

And perhaps the most damning thing, Manning knew what he did was illegal while he was doing it, and his motivation wasn't exactly noble.

What? No matter if his actions will have a net positive or negative outcome in the scheme of things, I cannot think of nobler motivation than what Manning had. I don't think some Americans really understand how horrid this whole process seems to us foreigners.

# ? Mar 2, 2013 08:32

Ho Chi Mint: Sep 6, 2005

Maksamakkara posted:

What? No matter if his actions will have a net positive or negative outcome in the scheme of things, I cannot think of nobler motivation than what Manning had. I don't think some Americans really understand how horrid this whole process seems to us foreigners.

A nobler motivation than trying to get revenge against an organization he was pissed at?

# ? Mar 2, 2013 08:37

Red_Mage: Jul 23, 2007; I should probably keep to posting about grognards in TGD, because when I discuss actual real-world politics with people who know what they're talking about, it becomes clear that I have trouble seeing things without a ruleset and character sheets.

Ho Chi Mint posted:

A nobler motivation than trying to get revenge against an organization he was pissed at?

Yeah see that's the rub. At times Manning implies in the Lamo chatlogs that he wants to get back at the Military/US gov, for some pretty legitimate grievances. Other times he implies that he thinks all data wants to be free. One of those is a fairly noble, if reckless goal. The other is reckless endangerment for the sake of revenge. Odds are in reality it swung between both, it was a little of each and probably of a few other things. The prosecution is going to maintain that it was mostly the latter, his defense I assume will maintain it was all but entirely the former.

# ? Mar 2, 2013 08:42

Uglycat: Dec 4, 2000

Ho Chi Mint posted:

A nobler motivation than trying to get revenge against an organization he was pissed at?

I coulda sworn I read something somewhere about wanting to spark a national dialog....

no, I must be mistaken. Manning was bullied for being trans/queer, and this was her spiting her abusers.

I don't read the OP!

# ? Mar 2, 2013 08:53

Maksamakkara: Jan 22, 2006

Ho Chi Mint posted:

A nobler motivation than trying to get revenge against an organization he was pissed at?

From my cursory reading of the various sources and feeble understanding: yes, a nobler motivation. I don't find it particularly hard to believe that a non-psychopathic person would occasionally feel the need to spread to wider audience the evidence of horrible crimes his institution daily commits.

article in the op posted:

in each case, you saw a 22-year-old, a 23-year-old, a person of incredible conscience, saying, "What I’m seeing the United States do is utterly wrong. It’s immoral. The way they’re killing people in Iraq, targeting people for death, rather than working with the population, this is wrong." And in each of these—each of these statements tells you about how he was doing it politically.

Truth to be told, I don't even care if part of his motivation to leak stemmed from personal reasons because people can have at the same time more than one reason that drives them to do things. And to take this even further, even if Manning leaked the stuff just to hasten the return of the Great Old Ones and the death of All That Is Holy, he has by now become a symbol and a hero and is therefore forever okay in my books.

Maksamakkara fucked around with this message at Mar 2, 2013 around 09:11

# ? Mar 2, 2013 08:55

karthun: Nov 16, 2006; WHERE'S YOUR GOD NOW SOCIALISTS?

Omi-Polari posted:

Hrm. What about the F-22 whistleblowers? (I have no idea how this works, just wondering.)

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...cted-air-force/

This was covered in the article.

quote:

The Military Whistleblower Protection Act allows for members of the armed forces to contact members of Congress, Inspectors General, law enforcement organizations and other regulating bodies concerning any number of potential legal or regulatory violations including threats to public safety. The two pilots who spoke to “60 Minutes” did so in the presence of Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R.-Ill.) in order to be afforded protection under the act.

# ? Mar 2, 2013 08:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2013 12:16

Ho Chi Mint: Sep 6, 2005

Should we add to the OP that Manning grew increasingly erratic as time went on in Iraq and assaulted one of his Non-Commissioned Officers?

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/...t-says-122011w/

Army Times posted:

Manning’s behavior grew more erratic, spc. says

By Joe Gould - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Dec 20, 2011 19:53:57 EST

FORT MEADE, Md. — Army colleagues said Tuesday that Pfc. Bradley Manning’s behavior progressively worsened over the course of a year, but it wasn’t until he punched another soldier in the face that his security clearance suffered.

Among the claims made during the fifth day of an Article 32 hearing here: Manning threw a screaming tantrum in front of his noncommissioned officer; flipped over a desk and attempted to grab a rifle; and dropped into the fetal position when reprimanded by his NCO.

Manning, 24, of Crescent, Okla., could be court-martialed on more than 20 counts, including aiding the enemy. The former intelligence analyst is accused of turning over hundreds of thousands of classified and secret documents to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks.

Prosecutors rested Tuesday after calling to the stand co-workers of Manning’s and a former hacker who claims Manning confessed to distributing documents to WikiLeaks. The defense is expected to start presenting its case Wednesday.
Witness to antics

Among those testifying was former Army Spc. Jihrleah Showman, the one-time leader of Manning’s Shiite threat analysis cell based at Forward Operating Base Hammer, Iraq.
Hearing coverage

Prosecutors rest case against Bradley Manning (Dec. 20)

Tech talk, not military lingo, dominates hearing (Dec. 20)

Witness: Manning assaulted me while in Iraq (Dec. 20)

Agents say Manning didn’t fully cover tracks (Dec. 19)

Agent: Manning’s laptop had sensitive files (Dec. 19)

Army agent testifies on Manning’s digital trail (Dec. 19)

Co-workers: Manning, others ignored security (Dec. 18)

Manning’s personal problems key to defense (Dec. 18)

Manning’s sexual orientation raised in hearing (Dec. 17)

Army disciplines 15 for Manning supervision (Dec. 17)

Investigator won’t step down in Manning hearing (Dec. 16)

Showman said her concerns with Manning’s behavior stretched back to before the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, left Fort Drum, N.Y., on its deployment.

In a May 2009 incident, Showman said Manning shrieked, spit, jumped up and down, and waved his arms after being admonished for missing a morning physical training session. Then-1st Sgt. Paul Adkins also witnessed the outburst, Showman said.

Showman said she then recommended to Adkins that Manning be punished, that he was a threat to himself and others, and that he should not deploy to Iraq. Those recommendations never reached the company commander, Showman testified.

In fall 2009, when Manning’s name appeared on a list of soldiers deploying with the brigade, Showman said she was furious and complained to Adkins.

In Iraq, where Showman was on the day shift with Manning, she watched his work deteriorate and his behavior grow more erratic, she said in testimony by telephone.

After an instance in which Manning ignored supervisors who called his name, Showman testified that Manning later told her he “constantly felt paranoid” and “felt people were listening to his conversations … felt he could not trust anyone in the unit or around him.”

Showman also mentioned other incidents:

• On Dec. 20, 2009, Manning flipped a desk in a dispute with a sergeant, breaking a computer, and then lunged for an unattended M4 rifle, she said. A soldier placed Manning in a headlock and dragged him off. Showman said she alerted Adkins to the incident.

• On May 7, 2010, after being admonished by Adkins for showing up late to work, Manning dropped into the fetal position. Several hours later while working in their secure facility, Manning got into a dispute with Showman and punched her in the face. She said she quickly pinned Manning while he repeated the phrase, “I’m so tired of this.”

“He … displayed an uncontrollable behavior that was deemed untrustworthy at the time,” Showman testified.
Delayed action

Following the assault, Capt. Casey Fulton banned Manning from the secure facility, had his weapon removed and suspended his security clearance.

Adkins, since demoted to master sergeant, had the authority to lodge a derogatory report against Manning’s security clearance which could have resulted in a suspension. Such reports were rare in the unit, and problems were handled internally by the intelligence section, Showman said.

“Any incidents that occurred, I felt it didn’t reach company level, when in my understanding, it probably should have,” she said.

Previous testimony indicated that Manning sent an email to Adkins in April 2010 that showed Manning in women’s clothing; and that Adkins drafted three memoranda detailing concerns about Manning, but did not discuss the incidents until after Manning’s June 2010 arrest.

Adkins has invoked his right not to testify.

While prosecutors have focused on claims Manning downloaded documents, uploaded them to WikiLeaks, and had frequent Internet chats with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, the defense has focused on Manning’s mental state and the fact that superiors didn’t help or discipline Manning for his resulting behavioral problems.

Prosecutor Capt. Ashden Fein challenged the relevance of those details, but defense attorney David E. Coombs defended sharing the background.

“The government has told you a lot about what things happened, and we want to tell you why things happened,” Coombs told presiding officer Lt. Col. Paul Almanza.
Leaked video

It also emerged Tuesday that Showman may have been the first to expose Manning to the now-infamous video of an Apache helicopter attack in 2007, in which two journalists were killed.

Showman said she was shown the video by a warrant officer from the brigade’s fires section who was grooming her to become a targeting analyst on a future deployment.

Three or four other soldiers watched the video and discussed it, Showman told Coombs under cross-examination.

“We were discussing what we were seeing, and analyzed what could be perceived as what or why the military tactics were using with that enemy,” Showman said.

# ? Mar 2, 2013 09:07

«‹›11 »

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Pvt. Manning pleads guilty to one of the charges