Bradley Manning testimony audio leaked - Polidicks

[media]http://soundcloud.com/buzzfeed/bradley-mannings-full[/media] [url]http://www.news.com.au/world-news/secret-recording-of-testimony-by-accused-wikileaks-whistleblower-bradley-manning-leaked/story-fndir2ev-1226596030048[/url] [quote]The tape was made during a nearly hour-long statement last month, when Pte Manning in a firm and assured voice explained he leaked some 70,000 files on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to start a "public debate." When he deployed to Iraq he found himself alienated from his comrades and at odds with an army that "seemed not to value human life," he told the hearing. In the audio, he is heard telling the hearing "it burdens me emotionally" that he witnessed a video of US soldiers in Baghdad celebrating as they gunned down what turned out to be civilians including two journalists. "The most alarming aspect of the video to me, however, was the seemingly delightful bloodlust they appeared to have," Pte Manning says of the video which caused a storm when it was released to the world by WikiLeaks. He compares the soldiers "to a child torturing ants with a magnifying glass."[/quote]

The Pentagon is on record saying that none of the leaks endangered US personnel or their allies, and some of the leaks even helped kick off the Arab Spring protests. Dudes a hero and has spent far too long in prison under horrible conditions. Let him go.

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE to him. if Obama can get one so can he

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39912641]The Pentagon is on record saying that none of the leaks endangered US personnel or their allies, and some of the leaks even helped kick off the Arab Spring protests. Dudes a hero and has spent far too long in prison under horrible conditions. Let him go.[/QUOTE] The result of what he leaked has no bearing on this case. The simple fact is that he violated UCMJ and his general orders. There is no way around that. You break UCMJ, UCMJ breaks you. This PFC is no different than any other UCMJ violator before him in the eyes of the law.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;39912713]The result of what he leaked has no bearing on this case. The simple fact is that he violated UCMJ and his general orders. There is no way around that. You break UCMJ, UCMJ breaks you. This PFC is no different than any other UCMJ violator before him in the eyes of the law.[/QUOTE] I think we can make a special exception for victims of torture.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39912721]I think we can make a special exception for victims of torture.[/QUOTE] Who is this "We" you are referencing? I am sorry, but it is not up to us to decide this. However you feel, no matter what happened to him, "We" cannot do anything. It is all up to "Them", being the court martial. Sure, what happened to him was bad. However, he broke several laws and violated a ton of orders. You can't let someone off due to torture. I know that sounds horrible, but the truth is that there is no chance in hell he is going to get any sort of "special exception."

[QUOTE=SKEEA;39912758]Who is this "We" you are referencing? I am sorry, but it is not up to us to decide this. However you feel, no matter what happened to him, "We" cannot do anything. It is all up to "Them", being the court martial. Sure, what happened to him was bad. However, he broke several laws and violated a ton of orders. You can't let someone off due to torture. I know that sounds horrible, but the truth is that there is no chance in hell he is going to get any sort of "special exception."[/QUOTE] We as a society, which the military certainly is a part of.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;39912713]The result of what he leaked has no bearing on this case. The simple fact is that he violated UCMJ and his general orders. There is no way around that. You break UCMJ, UCMJ breaks you. This PFC is no different than any other UCMJ violator before him in the eyes of the law.[/QUOTE] the eyes of the law are fucking oppressive. [editline]14th March 2013[/editline] man kills people: gets awarded medal man exposes war crimes: gets put in jail

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39912776]We as a society, which the military certainly is a part of.[/QUOTE] Thing is, you can't get around the fact that he broke the binding law that he swore to abide by, as well as agreeing to abide by his orders. He broke that promise (which is definitely in writing, everyone in the Military agrees to obey lawful orders and the UCMJ) and he is paying the consequences. Look at it how you will, he is not going to get any special treatment.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;39912758]Who is this "We" you are referencing? I am sorry, but it is not up to us to decide this. However you feel, no matter what happened to him, "We" cannot do anything. It is all up to "Them", being the court martial. Sure, what happened to him was bad. However, he broke several laws and violated a ton of orders. You can't let someone off due to torture. I know that sounds horrible, but the truth is that there is no chance in hell he is going to get any sort of "special exception."[/QUOTE] Yea I mean, there's no moral justification for the popular masses to hold the military and the government to some sort of mandate. We don't have power, We don't decide these sorts of things, and We shouldn't be involved, right? There will be no exception for Manning but that doesn't make it right.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;39912818]Thing is, you can't get around the fact that he broke the binding law that he swore to abide by, as well as agreeing to abide by his orders. He broke that promise (which is definitely in writing, everyone in the Military agrees to obey lawful orders and the UCMJ) and he is paying the consequences. Look at it how you will, he is not going to get any special treatment.[/QUOTE] he could if obama pardoned him or something.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39912780]the eyes of the law are fucking oppressive. [editline]14th March 2013[/editline] man kills people: gets awarded medal man exposes war crimes: gets put in jail[/QUOTE] If only it were so simple. This is the military. It is very different. He leaked a hell of a lot more than just "war crimes." The simple fact is that he violated UCMJ, and is being tried accordingly to the violation. You can't just ignore the laws of the military. Many privates, sergeants, and officers of all different grades have broke UCMJ in the past. Manning did so as well, so a trial follows.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];39912824']Yea I mean, there's no moral justification for the popular masses to hold the military and the government to some sort of mandate. We don't have power, We don't decide these sorts of things, and We shouldn't be involved, right? There will be no exception for Manning but that [B]doesn't make it right[/B].[/QUOTE] Exactly. If we're going to try to argue that "He broke the law therefore we can do whatever we want with him", then we could claim every country that violates human rights such as China or North Korea aren't doing anything wrong because, [B]HEY THAT'S THEIR LAW![/B]

[QUOTE=SKEEA;39912713]The simple fact is that he violated UCMJ and his general orders. There is no way around that. You break UCMJ, UCMJ breaks you. This PFC is no different than any other UCMJ violator before him in the eyes of the law.[/QUOTE] Simmer down soldier boy, the UCMJ is not always right.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];39912824']Yea I mean, there's no moral justification for the popular masses to hold the military and the government to some sort of mandate. We don't have power, We don't decide these sorts of things, and We shouldn't be involved, right? There will be no exception for Manning but that doesn't make it right.[/QUOTE] The thing is that it is a simple trial for someone that broke the law. There really is no "mandate" to hold him to, he is already being held to the law that he was mandated himself to follow.

Regardless of the right or wrong of his decisions, they were not his to make. He should be punished.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;39912861]The thing is that it is a simple trial for someone that broke the law. There really is no "mandate" to hold him to, he is already being held to the law that he was mandated himself to follow.[/QUOTE] yea and people are put to trial for selling marijuana or using cocaine but i don't think people [i]should[/i]. of course if someone breaks the law and doesn't have enough money to get out of it, they will be put at the mercy of the prosecution. that doesn't mean any of us actually agree with it. if it's illegal to release documents showing crimes of war, then the law should be changed. if people are prosecuted for creating a more transparent government, then that means we have our legal priorities mixed up.

[QUOTE=Vasili;39912845]Simmer down soldier boy, the UCMJ is not always right.[/QUOTE] I know, I know. UCMJ sucks sometimes. However, leaking thousands of classified documents is really hard to get around, no matter how morally justified. I am just saying that people shouldn't get their hopes up, military law is crushing, especially for E4 and below. You know this. Ugly, yes. Morally justified? Depends on the viewer. Is he getting an exception? No chance. The court martial is going to treat this like they would any other case of a private violating UCMJ. Make of it what you will.

your argument is "well it's illegal", which absolutely none of us are arguing. the argument is that it shouldn't be illegal.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;39912818]Thing is, you can't get around the fact that he broke the binding law that he swore to abide by, as well as agreeing to abide by his orders. He broke that promise (which is definitely in writing, everyone in the Military agrees to obey lawful orders and the UCMJ) and he is paying the consequences. Look at it how you will, he is not going to get any special treatment.[/QUOTE] you know, when you get to the point where a binding agreement is conflicting massively with your conscience and morals, I've got to ask who in the world can see said agreement as a good, ethical thing. I mean, is that really the kind of contract you should be able, much less [I]required[/I], to sign?

[QUOTE=Cone;39912926]you know, when you get to the point where a binding agreement is conflicting massively with your conscience and morals, I've got to ask who in the world can see said agreement as a good, ethical thing. I mean, is that really the kind of contract you should be able, much less [I]required[/I], to sign?[/QUOTE] Then he should not have signed it in the first place. That is his own fault. Every soldier in the military has a right to disobey an unlawful order i.e. executing children. He joined an organization that is fueled by war and death, I did not know what went through his mind when he took the oath during a time of war. You people realize that the UCMJ is incredibly hard-lined? It is the [b]military[/b]. You get caught doing dumb shit while you are off duty? You also get tried under the UCMJ. The military does not follow civilian code of laws but it enforces its own so that discipline could be maintained. The military does not 'pardon' whistleblowers that may have done good by igniting a revolution via leaked documents.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39912891]yea and people are put to trial for selling marijuana or using cocaine but i don't think people [i]should[/i]. of course if someone breaks the law and doesn't have enough money to get out of it, they will be put at the mercy of the prosecution. that doesn't mean any of us actually agree with it. if it's illegal to release documents showing crimes of war, then the law should be changed. if people are prosecuted for creating a more transparent government, then that means we have our legal priorities mixed up.[/QUOTE] The problem is that he leaked documents that also had nothing to do with war crimes. That is where they will get him.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39912908]your argument is "well it's illegal", which absolutely none of us are arguing. the argument is that it shouldn't be illegal.[/QUOTE] It's illegal for a reason. If it weren't, it would be a security risk. The fact is, when you join the military, you agree to give up some of your freedom. That's just the way it is.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;39912867]Regardless of the right or wrong of his decisions, they were not his to make. He should be punished.[/QUOTE] He's been punished enough.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;39912943]It's illegal for a reason. If it weren't, it would be a security risk. The fact is, when you join the military, you agree to give up some of your freedom. That's just the way it is.[/QUOTE] they shouldn't lack the ability to expose criminal activity in the military. they shouldn't be forced cover up evil activities.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39912987]they shouldn't lack the ability to expose criminal activity in the military. they shouldn't be forced cover up evil activities.[/QUOTE] No. I agree, they shouldn't. The problem is that it wasn't his responsibility. Somewhere, somebody dropped the ball, and he tried to fill in.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;39913027]No. I agree, they shouldn't. The problem is that it wasn't his responsibility. Somewhere, somebody dropped the ball, and he tried to fill in.[/QUOTE] i would say that since other people were covering up it was his obligation to expose it. it is the obligation of every human to expose war crimes when they see them.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39913049]i would say that since other people were covering up it was his obligation to expose it. it is the obligation of every human to expose war crimes when they see them.[/QUOTE] He went beyond his bounds of authority to do it. That is were the problem is.

and if he didn't, we wouldn't have known about war crimes. i would say that makes him a hero, not a criminal. when soldiers go above and beyond the call of duty on the battlefield they are awarded medals, but when someone goes above and beyond the call of duty to expose crime, then they are court martialed.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;39913077]He went beyond his bounds of authority to do it. That is were the problem is.[/QUOTE] i fail to see how authority is relevant when it's so blatantly immoral