Army To Try Bradley Manning In WikiLeaks Data Case - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Bobie;34536413]'the us is good because there are a few dictatorships that are way shitter' how many deaths has your beloved empire caused in the last 50 years? more than most of those countries combined i bet. and selling arms to a third party, neutral or not is a terrible idea. you cant actually be suggesting that supplying arms is a good idea in any case?[/QUOTE] You are British. And you are talking about how many death our "beloved empire" has caused in years past. Are you trolling or do you have a mental disability? [editline]3rd February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;34536741]I hope a thousand more people do what he did. If everyone in the army had the will to risk their very freedom for what they thought was right, then the world would be a better place.[/QUOTE] Lol even if that means killing civilians because they are Muslims? But they thought it was right.

[QUOTE=zombini;34536806]I correct myself, he committed espionage against the USA. Still doesn't warrant life in harsh military prison. I can understand those guys that murdered people getting life, but he doesn't deserve that bad of a punishment.[/QUOTE] Read the UCMJ man.

He knows the consequences of his actions, only his fault.

[QUOTE=Florence;34536790]Again, give one case where people died because of this. Wikileaks redacted the leaks as to not have that. [/QUOTE] He leaked the information, the people he gave the info to (wikileaks) may have decided to edit it, but that doesn't change the fact that he leaked classified info.

[QUOTE=Florence;34536790]Again, give one case where people died because of this. Wikileaks redacted the leaks as to not have that. [/quote] Well, actually, I didn't say anyone died. I said it compromised the United States, which, diplomatically, it did. It released classified cables including personal opinions of other diplomats and leaders. If you don't understand how this compromises the positions of American diplomats then imagine if everyone you work with or go to school with knew what you really think of them, and try to work with them. [quote]Also, considering Bradley has been kept in torturous conditions (solitary, sleep deprived, whole nine yards) when he is clearly not a threat, the US has wavered their moral grounds to prosecute him considering they have done onto him is worse that he has.[/quote] I'm pretty torn on this because I've read very sensationalist articles claiming he was being tortured and several articles describing very livable conditions, including the ability to read, be visited by family members, and leave his cell 2+ hrs a day. I truly don't know if he was being tortured. Regardless, it has no bearing on the legality of what he did, although it will probably come up in the trial for how he should be punished. [quote]It's a load of fucking bullshit and they can shove their legal justifications up their ass. Fuck this shit, this guy has ten times the patriotism that any fuckface DoJ suit.[/QUOTE] He really doesn't have much patriotism, as you'd probably know if you'd researched the trial. He didn't do this to expose war crimes. He did it because he was an incredibly confused, terrified, isolated individual in a bad position.

Bradley Manning was a whistleblower. "Bradley manning has leaked secret information that has put America's national security and the lives of others as risk." Many of these so called secrets are nothing more than locations of economic importance. The Strait of Gibraltar is a vital shipping lane and that the Democratic Republic of the Congo is rich in minerals. Many of these are nothing more than geological facts. There has also yet to be any evidence that the information leaked in the documents has had anyone killed. The documents he leaked has exposed the terrible recklessness of our government, it's corruption, and its attempt to hide it. I do not see why anyone thinks he should be serving jail time. This man is a hero. Why is it that when he exposes the dirty secrets of what has been going on behind the backs of American citizens, intolerable acts, we suddenly target the person who uncovered all of it? We were ignorant to what was going on.

[QUOTE=Noble;34536908]He leaked the information, the people he gave the info to (wikileaks) may have decided to edit it, but that doesn't change the fact that he leaked classified info.[/QUOTE] he leaked classified info which was classified by a malevolent entity

[QUOTE=Regulas021;34536914]Well, actually, I didn't say anyone died. I said it compromised the United States, which, diplomatically, it did. It released classified cables including personal opinions of other diplomats and leaders. If you don't understand how this compromises the positions of American diplomats then imagine if everyone you work with or go to school with knew what you really think of them, and try to work with them.[/QUOTE] Why is exposing our diplomats reckless behavior a bad thing? It is in our best interest to be transparent about what our diplomats do and how they act. Anyone who acts in the manner that our diplomats have, should be removed and barred from ever holding a federal job ever again. We need to be proactive in the way we present ourselves to the world. Removing bad eggs and fixing our problems will better our reputation, not hiding festering wounds.

[QUOTE=Funcoot;34536947]Why is exposing our diplomats reckless behavior a bad thing? It is in our best interest to be transparent about what our diplomats do and how they act. Anyone who acts in the manner that our diplomats have, should be removed and barred from ever holding a federal job ever again. We need to be proactive in the way we present ourselves to the world. Removing bad eggs and fixing our problems will better our reputation, not hiding festering wounds.[/QUOTE] He did not expose corrupt diplomats (or rather, if he did, that's only part of the dilemma). If an American diplomat meets with, say, Gaddafi, before his deposition, and writes home from the embassy that Gaddafi is irrational, unstable, and morally reprehensible, decision makers at home in the US now have an accurate, first hand account of a dangerous dictator. If that information is given directly to the Libyan government, no matter how qualified and intelligent that ambassador may be, he can never again hold that position. He'd be lucky to ever got another job in the field. The ability for the United States to negotiate with that government is now weakened, and leeway has to be given to a dictatorship in order to regain diplomatic ground.

Is his pretending to listen to pop music while downloading the files one of the counts against him?

Military Law is not the same as Civil Law. They pretty much have a strong hate for people who commit treason. They could probably sentence him to death if they wanted to.

Innocent or guilty, the guy's a total bradass.

He should have been a good citizen and shut up about war crimes :downs:

[QUOTE=Funcoot;34536916] This man is a hero. Why is it that when he exposes the dirty secrets of what has been going on behind the backs of American citizens, intolerable acts, we suddenly target the person who uncovered all of it? We were ignorant to what was going on.[/QUOTE] I would not call him a hero. We don't know exactly the consequences of the information leaked. For all we know, a terrorist group could use this info to carry out an attack. Or nothing could happen at all. Either way, I would say, a life sentence is a bit harsh of a punishment.

It does not matter if the crime was commited by a good person. The law is supposed to judge the individual by his actions not by how good he is. Bradley Manning comitted treason, it does not matter if he did it for the right reasons.

[QUOTE=Reserved Parkin;34539610]I would not call him a hero. We don't know exactly the consequences of the information leaked. For all we know, a terrorist group could use this info to carry out an attack. Or nothing could happen at all. Either way, I would say, a life sentence is a bit harsh of a punishment.[/QUOTE] Actually the point is that he will be made an example. To stop anyone else from leaking any further information that would cause propaganda defeat.

[QUOTE=Reserved Parkin;34539610]Either way, I would say, a life sentence is a bit harsh of a punishment.[/QUOTE] That's the way military laws work. The Government isn't looking to forgive and forget when they hand out security clearance and somebody abuses that power. There's no room for leniency.

[QUOTE=Reserved Parkin;34539610]I would not call him a hero. We don't know exactly the consequences of the information leaked. For all we know, a terrorist group could use this info to carry out an attack. Or nothing could happen at all. Either way, I would say, a life sentence is a bit harsh of a punishment.[/QUOTE] Aren't you prior military or am I thinking of someone else? They're definitely being lenient with him since the UCMJ states that treason carries a death sentence.

Exposing War Crimes, gets jail time while the people that commited those war crimes get off scott free, fuck the stupid system.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;34540347]Aren't you prior military or am I thinking of someone else? They're definitely being lenient with him since the UCMJ states that treason carries a death sentence.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I'm aware of the UCMJ, call me a hippy, but I think a life sentence is still a bit harsh. And Falchion, I highly doubt this is the first time someone leaked sensitive information and got caught and punished.

You can commit war crimes, but not expose them. That's how the justice works.

[QUOTE=Florence;34536173]Justice. /sarcasm[/QUOTE] Yes, because trying a guy who gave away tons of secret and highly classified material is not justice and is crime commuted by the jury, holy shit you need to get a clue.

[QUOTE=Falchion;34539710]Actually the point is that he will be made an example. To stop anyone else from leaking any further information that would cause propaganda defeat.[/QUOTE]If he was to be made an example of, the Military would be doing this by the books and have him executed.

[QUOTE=Bobie;34536667]since going in originally under the guise of looking for wmds[/QUOTE] Bush admitted it was bull and regretted going in due to the intelligence error, it was faulty intel. To say it was because of oil (because I have a feeling you will go there) is silly because US oil production or imports have hardly increased since the war. [QUOTE=Bobie;34536667]syria was having crises way worse than any in afghanistan or libya before all of this- and italy had the time to give hundreds of millions to gadaffi's regime and the bush/obama administration didnt even take notice. [/QUOTE] The United States can not instantly invade a country because of a human right abuse on a whim. You think a US bombing on Italy would end well? [QUOTE=Bobie;34536667]yes, genocides are terrible acts of war and must be stopped but what is being prevented in the incarceration of bradley manning? whose lives are saved by putting him away for life,[/QUOTE] "Hey, this guy leaked tons of possibly dangerous documents we said a million times could not be shown to anyone, HE IS INNOCENT!" I do not give a damn if some of the things he showed were human rights tragedies, he was still told not to show and he is being punished for it. [QUOTE=Bobie;34536667] and why is it that a country that claims to be a haven of human rights and dreams contain so many holes in its politics[/QUOTE] No one says America is perfect, not to mention, every country has shitty politics and twisted regulations, please tell me of a perfect country. [QUOTE=Bobie;34536667]my initial point was that the US is far more hypocritical,[/QUOTE] Yes, Afghanistan, Iraq and these other countries have in no way tried to down play or deny what they have done in any way and have not been hypocritical. No siree. [QUOTE=Bobie;34536667]not worse in any manner- countries like Afghanistan know what they're doing and don't hesitate to admit that they treat women poorly, albeit with awful reasoning.[/QUOTE] Just... no.

Revealing war crimes is all well and good, revealing them by grabbing every classified document you can and handing them over to a 3rd party is not. If he had just released that video, and done it himself, he may have gotten off lighter. Grabbing a pile of classified documents and releasing them to another party is the crux of the issue here IMO. It's like stopping a bank robbery by shooting everybody in the bank. You got the criminal, but you also ruined the days of a lot of people who weren't involved. That's where a scenario like this... [QUOTE=Regulas021;34536981]He did not expose corrupt diplomats (or rather, if he did, that's only part of the dilemma). If an American diplomat meets with, say, Gaddafi, before his deposition, and writes home from the embassy that Gaddafi is irrational, unstable, and morally reprehensible, decision makers at home in the US now have an accurate, first hand account of a dangerous dictator. If that information is given directly to the Libyan government, no matter how qualified and intelligent that ambassador may be, he can never again hold that position. He'd be lucky to ever got another job in the field. The ability for the United States to negotiate with that government is now weakened, and leeway has to be given to a dictatorship in order to regain diplomatic ground.[/QUOTE] comes into play.

[QUOTE=rinoaff33;34536744]open the floodgates[/QUOTE] "Slippery slope" argument and continuum fallacy, stopped reading your post.

Breanna Manning*

Its fucked up, a lot of people even here in Crescent wouldn't be opposed to him being executed.

[QUOTE=areolop;34538428]Military Law is not the same as Civil Law. They pretty much have a strong hate for people who commit treason. They could probably sentence him to death if they wanted to.[/QUOTE] They can sentence him to death, hes very lucky they aren't.

[QUOTE=Jetblack357;34548415]They can sentence him to death, hes very lucky they aren't.[/QUOTE] rotting in prison for the rest of your life isn't much better, some would say it's worse. so he's not "very lucky".