[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51689481]For one;
MIA is not much different than KIA. Furthermore, Manning is not a whistle blower, she is just a straight up traitor. If she had the intention to be a whistleblower, then she could have followed whistleblower channels that are already in place for exposing warcrimes and the like.
[/QUOTE]
The official whistleblowing channels do not work. People who would go through them are discouraged implicitly to maintain the status quo, and people who do actually make a proper whistleblowing complaint are made examples of or quieted so things can continue in secrecy.
[QUOTE=Arctic-Zone;51689653]The official whistleblowing channels do not work. People who would go through them are discouraged implicitly to maintain the status quo, and people who do actually make a proper whistleblowing complaint are made examples of or quieted so things can continue in secrecy.[/QUOTE]
It's still better than recklessly leaking information onto the web. Several news agencies wanted nothing to do with Manning's stolen information; what does that tell you about it's contents? I'll state it again, she should have followed whistle blowing procedures no matter how tedious or humiliating they are.
If she had followed those, she wouldn't be in a military prison.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51689694]If she had followed those, she wouldn't be in a military prison.[/QUOTE]
Eh, I doubt that, the moment she got exposed they'd find an excuse to put her in one anyway. They don't want their secrets out and they've made it pretty clear that they'll fuck your shit up six ways from sunday no matter how you leak it.
[QUOTE=TestECull;51689871]Eh, I doubt that, the moment she got exposed they'd find an excuse to put her in one anyway. They don't want their secrets out and they've made it pretty clear that they'll fuck your shit up six ways from sunday no matter how you leak it.[/QUOTE]
I imagine at some point she would get reprimanded in a way that doesn't immediately lead to military prison.
[QUOTE=TestECull;51689871]Eh, I doubt that, the moment she got exposed they'd find an excuse to put her in one anyway. They don't want their secrets out and they've made it pretty clear that they'll fuck your shit up six ways from sunday no matter how you leak it.[/QUOTE]
She would have been bullied and berated, probably transferred to some bullshit posting so she would leave as soon as her time was up, but she wouldn't have been sent to military prison for it. People wouldn't use whistleblower channels if you suffered legal consequences for it.
This really feels like a half-assed attempt to save face. Not only is he just doing this because Dems are still upset about Manning, but he's doing it within the last days of his presidency instead of doing it any other time, or rather attempting it any other time. Not to mention that Manning released hundreds of documents detailing our informants and collaborators in current conflicts, which effectively put giant red crosshairs on their heads. IIRC, Daesh actually used said documents to hunt and kill people who worked with the Coalition in Iraq.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;51689365]Would people defend manning as strongly if she wasn't trans?
She clearly put her fellow soldiers at risk and violated her oath to the US government. She was court martialed and imprisoned. The "war crimes" that she exposed were perfectly legal under ROE and any reasonable assumption. Even the solitary confinement that she was put into was only done after she kept on trying to kill herself and needed to be put on constant watch. She deserved everything she got and maybe a little bit more. Obama's pardoning her is simply him trying to preserve his legacy after Trump's vow to destroy most of his legacy.[/QUOTE]
You have to be kidding me. She had boatloads of support on this forums and elsewhere even before the trans thing, get out of here with this nonsense about how people only give a shit because she's trans.
I've already made a post about why i consider her actions justified. It's the faulty officials channels fault if people are forced to go outside those channels and end up leaking too much.
If you think the official whistleblower channels would have published that Apache helicopter video you're out of your mind.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;51689365]Would people defend manning as strongly if she wasn't trans?
[/QUOTE]
People keep raising this point and it doesn't make sense to me. Trans individuals aren't the most highly regarded or well-treated minority group in the US, why would Manning receive special treatment for her identity when US citizens have already shown their appreciation for whistleblowers and disdain for our punitive justice system? I'd say that her being trans is pretty low on the totem pole of factors that resulted in her support.
[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;51691409]If you think the official whistleblower channels would have published that Apache helicopter video you're out of your mind.[/QUOTE]
They wouldn't have published the video because it's not a warcrime. They wouldn't have published anything because she didn't release much besides compromising information that put people in danger.
[QUOTE=evilweazel;51685748]Anyone who releases classified information (and thereby possibly endangered the lives of other sevicemen doing so), broke an oath to the country, abused their security clearance, and is literally a traitor shouldn't ever see a free life again.
Hopefully, this is something a new administration can put a halt to or reverse.[/QUOTE]
Jesus Christ, go easy on the Koolaid, that shit's bad for you.
TRA1T0R0us Cr1MINAL SKUM are a far lower threat to you and me than an authoritarian government that tramples civil rights, and commits war crimes, I assure you.
It should have been done sooner and she should be released entirely.
This is ok though.
In other news, Assange decided to not uphold his promise, because Manning hasn't been released immediately but rather will be in May. I don't think anyone is surprised, but yeah.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51693126]In other news, Assange decided to not uphold his promise, because Manning hasn't been released immediately but rather will be in May. I don't think anyone is surprised, but yeah.[/QUOTE]
No way, what a surprise. He explicitly said that if Manning was granted clemency he'd accept extradition - not that if she was pardoned he'd accept extradition. This is textbook clemency - executive action reducing a punishment.
Assange continues to lose my respect day after day. [URL="https://warisboring.com/has-wikileaks-been-infiltrated-by-russian-spies-b876a8bc035a#.hx2xfjwtw"]This article[/URL] details why I'm wholeheartedly convinced Assange and WikiLeaks have been blackmailed or otherwise co-opted by Russian state interests. He threatened to release incriminating documents on Russian politicians in 2010, then backed down when the FSB threatened him... and then he got a TV show on RT. Article's mostly conjecture, but it cites its events well, and really highlights Assange's bullshit - he ran out of money because banks started halting credit card donations to WikiLeaks, so he turned elsewhere for funds to maintain himself and his organization - at the expense of his morals, his transparency, and pretty much everything else.
Assange can fuck off. I respect leakers greatly, and I respect what Manning and Snowden did in informing the American people, but Assange has become such a blatant mouthpiece for Russia that it's actually embarrassing to put him in the same conversation with Manning and Snowden.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51689481]
It's a punishment dood, she hasn't been a danger to society since she actually leaked the information. People shouldn't be let off of treason just because they aren't a danger to society. She still committed an immensely huge crime.[/QUOTE]
Jfc are you actually serious? I think she served more than enough time, especially given the conditions she was kept under during her incarceration.
What she did was irresponsible but for christ's sake, there are some sexual predators (I refer to the harmful types) who would've gotten off lighter than she ever did. It's not in the public interest to keep her locked up, especially not someone who isn't a malicious individual.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;51689365]Would people defend manning as strongly if she wasn't trans?
She clearly put her fellow soldiers at risk and [B]violated her oath to the US government.[/B] She was court martialed and imprisoned. The "war crimes" that she exposed were perfectly legal under ROE and any reasonable assumption. Even the solitary confinement that she was put into was only done after she kept on trying to kill herself and needed to be put on constant watch. She deserved everything she got and maybe a little bit more. Obama's pardoning her is simply him trying to preserve his legacy after Trump's vow to destroy most of his legacy.[/QUOTE]
this isn't even an argument yet everybody uses it. your 'oaths' can suck one when civil liberties are being trampled and international law is being broken. it's the entire reason whistleblowing exists.
not even gonna go into the trans bullshit, literally nothing to do with any of this besides the fact it contributed to her terrible treatment.
[QUOTE=GordonZombie;51693512]Jfc are you actually serious? I think she served more than enough time, especially given the conditions she was kept under during her incarceration.
What she did was irresponsible but for christ's sake, there are some sexual predators (I refer to the harmful types) who would've gotten off lighter than she ever did. It's not in the public interest to keep her locked up, especially not someone who isn't a malicious individual.[/QUOTE]
Child predators might get away easy in your country, but not typically in mine.
Justice is not about public interest. She committed treason dood. People used to be executed for that not all that long ago.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51693767]Child predators might get away easy in your country, but not typically in mine.
Justice is not about public interest. She committed treason dood. People used to be executed for that not all that long ago.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, because Manning's actions warrant death, right? Correct me if I'm wrong, the last people who were executed for treason were actively, willfully spying for an enemy country, right? Typically at some form of gain or profit.
Times have changed. Manning may have been irresponsible in her actions but that doesn't remove the legitimacy of some of the content leaked (like the footage of those journalists killed by a gunship). She had her name dragged through the dirt, she served her time and it wasn't exactly an easy experience either, so yeah.
[QUOTE=GordonZombie;51694041]Yeah, because Manning's actions warrant death, right? Correct me if I'm wrong, the last people who were executed for treason were actively, willfully spying for an enemy country, right? Typically at some form of gain or profit.
Times have changed. Manning may have been irresponsible in her actions but that doesn't remove the legitimacy of some of the content leaked (like the footage of those journalists killed by a gunship). She had her name dragged through the dirt, she served her time and it wasn't exactly an easy experience either, so yeah.[/QUOTE]
Never said she deserved death, I'm saying she got off lucky with a life sentence. If an intelligence officer 70 years ago gave out information, like Manning gave out, to the Germans, Japanese, Soviets, ect., or made it openly available to everyone on earth, then she would have been executed for it. Making something openly public and readily available isn't much different than giving it to an enemy directly.
I've already justified why the gunship killings is not a warcrime 2 dozen times in this thread so I'm not going to revisit that.
Just because things were done a certain way in the past doesn't mean they should be done that way forever.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51694262]Just because things were done a certain way in the past doesn't mean they should be done that way forever.[/QUOTE]
Miss the part again where I said it shouldn't be like that? Miss the part where I said that shes just lucky that it isn't like that now? Miss the part where I said she doesn't deserve to be executed?
Why even bring that up then
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51694298]Why even bring that up then[/QUOTE]
to quantify how heinous of a crime treason is.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51694361]to quantify how heinous of a crime treason is.[/QUOTE]
I suggest you look up the definition of treason, whistleblowing hardly comes close.
Good for her, man.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;51694687]I suggest you look up the definition of treason, whistleblowing hardly comes close.[/QUOTE]
Leaking troop movements, names of informants and human intelligence names and locations, among other sensitive data, is not whistleblowing. Handing over a disc that you barely know whats on it to Wikileaks is not whistleblowing. Handing off a video of a tragic event, but not a warcrime, is not whistleblowing.
What manning did [b]was not[/b] whistleblowing, it was blatant treason. She may have had good intentions with it, may have thought she was blowing the whistle, but thats not what it was.
It's like I'm saying the same thing over and over here.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51695504]Leaking troop movements, names of informants and human intelligence names and locations, among other sensitive data, is not whistleblowing. Handing over a disc that you barely know whats on it to Wikileaks is not whistleblowing. Handing off a video of a tragic event, but not a warcrime, is not whistleblowing.
What manning did [b]was not[/b] whistleblowing, it was blatant treason. She may have had good intentions with it, may have thought she was blowing the whistle, but thats not what it was.
It's like I'm saying the same thing over and over here.[/QUOTE]
And no is listening because you come across as wildly overzealous and incapable of accepting that what Manning did does not constitute treason.
A google search gives you the definition as "the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government.". Even if we focus on the first part only labeling what Manning did as "betraying one's country" is too much. You accept it was done with good intentions, you talk about it like Manning purposefully leaked the information to enemy combatants to aid them.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51695504]Leaking troop movements, names of informants and human intelligence names and locations, among other sensitive data, is not whistleblowing. Handing over a disc that you barely know whats on it to Wikileaks is not whistleblowing. Handing off a video of a tragic event, but not a warcrime, is not whistleblowing.
What manning did [b]was not[/b] whistleblowing, it was blatant treason. She may have had good intentions with it, may have thought she was blowing the whistle, but thats not what it was.
It's like I'm saying the same thing over and over here.[/QUOTE]
If Manning really committed treason I'm fairly sure a federal prosecution would have gotten the "aiding the enemy" charge to stick. It didn't because it was bullshit. I suppose you also think Daniel Ellsberg was a traitor?
When the helicopter engaged the first-responders that pulled up in the van they were unarmed, as was the injured journalist crawling on the sidewalk. They reported "picking up bodies and weapons" (there were no readily visible weapons anywhere being picked up) in order to get permission to engage. Firing on unarmed people who pose no threat is a breach of the ROE and international law. And no, "there might have been terrorists in the van" is not a morally justifiable excuse to fire on unarmed people.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;51695600]And no is listening because you come across as wildly overzealous and incapable of accepting that what Manning did does not constitute treason.
A google search gives you the definition as "the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government.". Even if we focus on the first part only labeling what Manning did as "betraying one's country" is too much. You accept it was done with good intentions, you talk about it like Manning purposefully leaked the information to enemy combatants to aid them.[/QUOTE]
If she wanted to release a few incriminating videos, then she could have done just that. But like I stated earlier, she released a lot of sensitive data that put not only informants and human intelligence in danger, but her fellow brothers and sisters in danger as well. If that isn't betrayal, I don't know what is.
The majority of what she leaked didn't expose warcrimes or incriminate the US' actions in recent wars, it just put US troops, their allies, and their human intelligence sources at risk. She may have intended for it to do good, but intent isn't relevant. Putting that sort of information online where it's readily available for anyone in the world to access it, is the same as making it readily available for an enemy to access it.
If she just released "Collateral Murder" to news outlets, this would be a different story. But thats not what happened, and thats why shes sitting in prison for the past 7 years.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51689923]I imagine at some point she would get reprimanded in a way that doesn't immediately lead to military prison.[/QUOTE]
It does if you've pissed off alphabet soup agencies that have a proven track record of working above normal due process. It doesn't really matter if what you've done is even illegal or not, if you've earned their ire enough that they want to penalize you it ain't gonna be a citation.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51690643]She would have been bullied and berated, probably transferred to some bullshit posting so she would leave as soon as her time was up, but she wouldn't have been sent to military prison for it. People wouldn't use whistleblower channels if you suffered legal consequences for it.[/QUOTE]
Nah. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I honestly don't think the government would have let it slide even if she did use proper channels. She would have been in gitmo either way. It's not as if she simply exposed the affair of a three-star to his wife, she exposed highly classified documents by the million. She pissed off alphabet soup agencies that have a track record of being able to do whatever the fuck they want to do with near impunity. I don't doubt for one instant that they would be able to find a way to fabricate charges sufficient to have her locked away.
But then again I really don't trust the government any farther than I can throw the Capitol Building. Hopefully, for reasons of civil rights, I'm wrong. This is one thing I want to be wrong on. But I don't think I am. I genuinely think the government can and will do such things.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
