• US government requests Bradley Manning be sentenced to 60 years
    38 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Superkilll307;41902303]I always hear "The US government says..." But who exactly does that represent? The US lawyers, or the law makers, and if its the latter surely they all would have to democratically decide what to say. Would someone mind clearing this up for me?[/QUOTE]Usually it means the administration in these cases i.e. the executive branch.
He damaged "brand america" and that is IT. Don't fuck with the brand, yo.
[QUOTE=Fahrenheit;41897177]Could you elaborate?[/QUOTE] Sure, the documents he released included troop movements, positions, and strategies. The most "incriminating secrets" to be found in the pile were personal letters. I know the guys around here generally like to think that the US is the embodiment of evil and anything done against them is objectively good, but all Manning did with this was embarrass and risk the lives of his fellow soldiers.
[QUOTE=Reimu;41900286]FTFY. The book version of "Band of Brothers" actually goes through how soldiers operate between time on the battlefield. It's very interesting. The first time they step on the battlefield, most well-trained soldiers are brimming with self-confidence and think that death is something that they won't have to deal with. After their first engagement, their opinions usually take a sharp 180, and they start to realize that any day on the battlefield could be their last. That's one of the reasons why battlefield heroics are extremely rare. No one wants to get shot, and well trained men are told that heroics impede the objective more than anything. Combine that with the fact that, after their first engagement, most soldiers realize they're extremely vulnerable whenever they go out on the field, and it creates a situation where soldiers understand that battlefield duty is always a risky endeavor.[/QUOTE] Did you just cite fiction as a source? And yes, soldiers know that they might get shot, but they don't [I]expect [/I]​it.
america the land of freedom
You think after it's revealed you're involved in grievous violations of basic human rights, you'd stop. But nope! America just keeps on truckin'.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;41905342]Did you just cite fiction as a source? And yes, soldiers know that they might get shot, but they don't [I]expect [/I]​it.[/QUOTE] To my knowledge, the book written in 1992 was based on the author's own experiences...
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;41905069]Sure, the documents he released included troop movements, positions, and strategies. The most "incriminating secrets" to be found in the pile were personal letters. I know the guys around here generally like to think that the US is the embodiment of evil and anything done against them is objectively good, but all Manning did with this was embarrass and risk the lives of his fellow soldiers.[/QUOTE] That's hardy "all" he did. The diplomatic cables he released sparked the rebellions in Tunisia and the Arab Spring.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;41898986]Man, in just a few short decades we as a society have gone from idolizing courageous whistleblowers like Ellsberg to pushing for them to be jailed for life for a "crime" that hasn't been proven to have brought one iota of direct physical harm to anyone. Embarrassing the administration apparently carries a life sentence now.[/QUOTE] Are you [I]seriously[/I] comparing Ellsberg, who released documents that had been classified solely to cover up the president's embarrassment and shouldn't have been classified in the first place, after attempting several times to pursue legal avenues for whistleblowing, to Manning, who decided the Internet should have thousands and thousands of sensitive military documents and just sent it to Wikileaks? You don't see any difference? None whatsoever? [QUOTE=Darth Hater;41901284]He tried the "proper legal channels" by going to superior officers and was denied. Releasing it to the media was his only option.[/QUOTE] That's nonsense. The Merit Systems Protection Board, Department of Defense, Office of Special Counsel, and even Congress itself are all legally protected avenues of whistleblowing. [QUOTE=Kuro.;41901564]Going through 'legal channels' to air the government's dirty laundry is a great way to commit career suicide, or wind up dead or missing as is often the case.[/QUOTE] And you know this how? It sure seems that most people have no idea how the government works when it comes to whistleblowing. The whole point is not to simply pass complaints up the chain- if you report to a superior and the superior blocks you, then that's why whistleblowing exists in the first place, to allow complaints to be taken to a [I]different[/I] agency that can then hold the original accountable without risking it damaging your career. The MSPB and CAFC exist [I]specifically[/I] to provide legal protection to whistleblowers who report misconduct outside their own agency, to prevent them from coming to harm. There are a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_United_States]whole bunch[/url] of agencies that whistleblowers are legally protected in reporting to. You don't hear about successful examples of whistleblowing because the stories never leave the federal government. A questionable project is started, someone complains to another agency, and the whole thing gets shut down quietly. When it goes to the press is when the system has failed, either because every option has been tried and exhausted (as is the case with Ellsberg) or when the would-be whistleblower didn't even try to follow proper channels (as is the case with Manning).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.