Page 1 of 5
#1
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
#3
This is one of those weird cases where I have no idea on how I feel about it. It's a total grey area.

On one hand, he spread out sensitive information that got into enemy hands and (may) have caused harm to the troops on the ground.

On the other hand, he spread information that his superiors were coming war crimes and doing other illegal things...

So I guess the question is: is leaking that information and possibly causing harm to the troops worth exposing illegal things? I don't know the answer to that question. At least not morally, anyways.


Also. those new Army Service Uniforms look ****ing TERRIBLE! They need to go back to the Army green and dress blues!
Quote by strat0blaster
This is terrible advice. Even worse than the useless dry, sarcastic comment I made.

Quote by Cathbard
I'm too old for the Jim Morrison look now. When I was gigging I had a fine arse.
#5
very misleading title

i think i agree with that verdict. don't know much about the case though so the other charges are beyond my judgement.
#7
^morals are relative. Whether it benefits the human race (or, at least, America) in the long run will be a less subjective way of judging it. And even then it comes down to who you ask.

That said any exposure of corruption in the military, law, or government is always in my good books.
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
#8
Quote by Banjocal
^morals are relative. Whether it benefits the human race (or, at least, America) in the long run will be a less subjective way of judging it. And even then it comes down to who you ask.

That said any exposure of corruption in the military, law, or government is always in my good books.


My thoughts exactly. That's what makes this such a grey issue.
Quote by strat0blaster
This is terrible advice. Even worse than the useless dry, sarcastic comment I made.

Quote by Cathbard
I'm too old for the Jim Morrison look now. When I was gigging I had a fine arse.
#9
It seemed like it would be difficult to convict him of aiding and abetting the enemy, what with it being difficult to prove that he knew it would/could get into the hands of groups like AQ, LeT, TeTP, etc.

Seems like he'll still be found guilty of most of the other charges, thankfully.
My God, it's full of stars!
#10
He'll probably serve them concurrently and probably get 10 to 15
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
#13
> aiding the enemy

What enemy? Seriously you guys..
Quote by Pleasure2kill
The truth is, Muslims never apologized for their faith having something to do with the attacks on 9/11.
#15
Quote by damian_91
> aiding the enemy

What enemy? Seriously you guys..


Take your pick?

AQI, AQAP, AQIM, LeT, al Shabaab, TeTP, Afghan Taliban, etc. Plenty of groups which self-admittedly hate America and its citizens could use the information.

Arguing that he intended for these groups to get the information is entirely different from acknowledging that these groups exist in the first place.
My God, it's full of stars!
Last edited by Dreadnought at Jul 31, 2013,
#16
You're arguing with a troll Dready.
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
#17
I know, but I'm putting the information out there for others who may be misinformed or ignorant of these groups.
My God, it's full of stars!
#18
Dreadnought, do you post on the BBC comments under that name? Saw some comments under your name that sounded like you might have written them.

Exposing crimes committed, even if they're by your government, shouldn't be a crime as far as I'm concerned.

See 4th principle of the Nuremberg Tribunal: 'The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.'

'I was only following orders' isn't a defence for wrongdoing.
Looking to buy a Fender Jagstang, u sellin?
#19
Quote by Jackal58
He'll probably serve them concurrently and probably get 10 to 15

I wonder if that's possible in his case.
#20
Yeah, it's sad that he's gonna be made an example of, but he probably knew the consequences.


Didn't he release them to Wikileaks? I thought they review all documents to make sure that none of them contain info that could harm anyone, am I wrong? Was there reports of anyone that got hurt because of his actions?
#22
Quote by ali.guitarkid7
Yeah, it's sad that he's gonna be made an example of, but he probably knew the consequences.


Didn't he release them to Wikileaks? I thought they review all documents to make sure that none of them contain info that could harm anyone, am I wrong? Was there reports of anyone that got hurt because of his actions?

We would never know is the sad truth.
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
#23
Quote by Cal UK
Dreadnought, do you post on the BBC comments under that name? Saw some comments under your name that sounded like you might have written them.

Exposing crimes committed, even if they're by your government, shouldn't be a crime as far as I'm concerned.

See 4th principle of the Nuremberg Tribunal: 'The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.'

'I was only following orders' isn't a defence for wrongdoing.


No I don't, that's very strange.

Also, he didn't just "expose crimes." That just happened to be about .01% of the massive trove of classified information he leaked.
My God, it's full of stars!
#24
Quote by ali.guitarkid7
Yeah, it's sad that he's gonna be made an example of, but he probably knew the consequences.


Didn't he release them to Wikileaks? I thought they review all documents to make sure that none of them contain info that could harm anyone, am I wrong? Was there reports of anyone that got hurt because of his actions?


Why should I trust the people at Wikileaks? Other than the fact that they are a group who could do whatever they want with the information before they "redacted" it, there is also the matter of fact that their "redaction", which I've seen from some of the documents I have read, was terrible and missed lots of important things. The fact of the matter is that they do not know how to handle sensitive information, as evidenced by their blatant mishandling of it.

Who's to say Wikileaks didn't sell or give the information, even before it was redacted, to other groups or people? When it comes to trusting my government or "Wikileaks", the choice is pretty clear for me.
My God, it's full of stars!
#25
If anything, all WikiLeaks did was prove that they wanted to give a giant middle finger to the US and anyone else who didn't believe in their ideals. They were pretty damn amateurish about the whole thing and showed about the same amount of responsibility as an immature rebelling teenager.

Manning, while his goals may have been noble, went about exposing these crimes in the completely wrong manner. He should have gone to his sergeant about it and passed the crimes he found up the chain of command. Of course, he probably would have had to be patient and wait until anything could have been done. Dumping several thousand sensitive documents, the vast majority of which didn't even involve the crimes he found, into the hands of an untrusted external organization was about the dumbest thing he could have done. People who think WikiLeaks and Assange are some kind of heroes are wrongfully idiolizing a group that just wanted to say "Fuck you!" to whoever they could.
#26
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
If anything, all WikiLeaks did was prove that they wanted to give a giant middle finger to the US and anyone else who didn't believe in their ideals. They were pretty damn amateurish about the whole thing and showed about the same amount of responsibility as an immature rebelling teenager.

Manning, while his goals may have been noble, went about exposing these crimes in the completely wrong manner. He should have gone to his sergeant about it and passed the crimes he found up the chain of command. Of course, he probably would have had to be patient and wait until anything could have been done. Dumping several thousand sensitive documents, the vast majority of which didn't even involve the crimes he found, into the hands of an untrusted external organization was about the dumbest thing he could have done. People who think WikiLeaks and Assange are some kind of heroes are wrongfully idiolizing a group that just wanted to say "Fuck you!" to whoever they could.


We think very similarly on this topic.

The way they all went about accomplishing this was incredibly amateur, dangerous, and overall very counterproductive.
My God, it's full of stars!
#27
Should I know who this is? Why are they escorting a ghost?
Quote by Trowzaa
I wish I was American.

~ A Rolling Potato Gathers No Moss ~
#28
Quote by Rossenrot
Still faces up to 128 years, and hopefully he gets every one of them.
How many years do you think should be given to the perpetrators of the war crimes he exposed?
#29
Quote by psyks
How many years do you think should be given to the perpetrators of the war crimes he exposed?

With all due respect, at this point, the general public (aka you and me) don't even know if there really were any war crimes. Or if it was just Manning thinking "Hey! These sound like 'crimes' I could get away with whistleblowing about". All we know is that, out of ~9000 documents, there might have been 0.01% that were actual possible war crimes.

Assuming there actually were real war crimes committed, the military tends to deal with things like that in house. The JAG Corps is very efficient at administering justice within the military. The "perps" of any war crimes have likely already been tried and sentenced by JAG.

Of course, this is all assuming there actually were any real war crimes committed. I'm very hesitant to believe a man who betrayed his oath to expose this.
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at Jul 31, 2013,
#30
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
With all due respect, at this point, the general public (aka you and me) don't even know if there really were any war crimes. Or if it was just Manning thinking "Hey! These sound like 'crimes' I could get away with whistleblowing about".
Assuming there actually were real war crimes committed, the military tends to deal with things like that in house. The JAG Corps is very efficient at administering justice within the military. The "perps" of any war crimes have likely already been tried and sentenced by JAG.

Of course, this is all assuming there actually were any real war crimes committed. I'm very hesitant to believe a man who betrayed his oath to expose this.
Did you not see that one video with the apache helicopter and the tank?
#31
Quote by psyks
Did you not see that one video with the apache helicopter and the tank?

Which is supposed to prove all of what Manning said? In all likelihood, Manning found evidence of a handful of minor crimes committed by soldiers and used those as an excuse to fuel his dump of documents in his ideologically inspired act. He probably hoped that he'd see vindication as some sort of hero. But most people won't even remember him, because his act didn't actually expose anything of real substance. It's not like he exposed Watergate, Pt. II or some high-up government conspiracy. In fact, he exposed a few minor crimes which JAG has probably already taken care of by now (read: the perps are already sentenced and serving their sentences).
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at Jul 31, 2013,
#32
Quote by Dreadnought
When it comes to trusting my government or "Wikileaks", the choice is pretty clear for me.

And then the choice is pretty clear for me.


I'm a firm believer that there's absolutely no way you could use the law to expose corruption. I'm not gonna turn to the police in Saudi Arabia to ask them to protect me from islamist groups because I'm gay, in the same way I'm not gonna turn to security forces in North Korea to protect me cuz I'm a journalist being hunted by the police. I'm not gonna walk to my superior in the US army and ask if I can release evidence that proves war crimes are being committed by the army.


Wikileaks, Assange, Manning, Snowden and hopefully others are heroes and they've earned every bit of respect I have. And you know how much respect for soldiers and my own army I have (plus yours, since you made us this strong ); I'm not just thinking "**** the police/**** you" or something. The idea that files like these shouldn't be released, outside local/state media, without the gov's knowledge, is myopic and a little naive. No one was hurt so far, so we have no reason to believe anyone will. You don't put someone in jail for the remainder of their life because "someone could've gotten hurt".
#33
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Which is supposed to prove all of what Manning said?
No, you postured that we the general public had no idea whether any war crimes were exposed in Manning's leak, when there's a video of 12 or so people, including reporters and children, being massacred by a US apache helicopter.

I'm not sure that's the sort of thing I want to be hushed up or 'dealt with in house'.

The only person arrested over the event was Manning.


edit: Do you have evidence that the soldiers were arrested? Given that the military refused to give the footage to reporters under the freedom of information act, and the video wasn't leaked until 3 years following, I didn't think anyone had been arrested.
Last edited by psyks at Jul 31, 2013,
#34
Quote by psyks
How many years do you think should be given to the perpetrators of the war crimes he exposed?


It would take a lot of assumptions for me to answer that, and I don't like assuming. I would recommend you to read about the collateral from other areas like the drone program, you will realize that the events Manning found to be especially reprehensible are not unique nor markedly heinous. His actions were geared towards self promotion, not towards a mass revelation about the tactics of the GWOT.
#35
Quote by Rossenrot
It would take a lot of assumptions for me to answer that, and I don't like assuming.
Quote by rossenrot
His actions were geared towards self promotion, not towards a mass revelation about the tactics of the GWOT.

In my opinion the first bit is incoherent with the second bit.

But seriously, what isn't remarkably heinous about gunning down children and reporters? Are you saying that if he'd only released better information, you'd be on his side?

128 years seems like a harsh sentence for not exposing good enough war crimes.

Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Manning found evidence of a handful of minor crimes committed by soldiers and used those as an excuse to fuel his dump of documents in his ideologically inspired act.
Minor crimes include littering, traffic offenses and vandalism. Or does the death toll have to get into triple digits before it's considered a war crime?
#36
the fact that the information exposed could endanger the lives of others kind of cancels out the street cred for he gets for disclosing anything suspicious.
#37
It can get well into 6 digits and not be considered a war crime by a lot of people who love to stand by gov'ts no matter what
#38
Quote by psyks
Minor crimes include littering, traffic offenses and vandalism. Or does the death toll have to get into triple digits before it's considered a war crime?

Tell me, what source do you have that any civilian death or injuries occurred beyond that video you referenced? Besides, as I said, JAG has probably already sentenced the perps of any war crimes by now.

Also, quit being dramatic.

Quote by ali.guitarkid7
It can get well into 6 digits and not be considered a war crime by a lot of people who love to stand by gov'ts no matter what

I'm usually the last guy to stand by the government, Ali. I think both major parties in the US lost their shit and went batty awhile back. That doesn't change the fact that Manning wasn't doing anyone a favor by "exposing" all of this. If he'd dumped the documents that detailed the war crimes alone, a case could be made that his goal was merely to expose those. However, by dumping ~9000 documents, he proved the war crimes were just an excuse.
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at Jul 31, 2013,
#39
Quote by Eastwinn
the fact that the information exposed could endanger the lives of others kind of cancels out the street cred for he gets for disclosing anything suspicious.
Well, if he had put lives in danger, he would have been found guilty of aiding the enemy. As it happens, the Pentagon reported that no lives were put at risk by the leak.

Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Tell me, what source do you have that any civilian death or injuries occurred beyond that video you referenced? Besides, as I said, JAG has probably already sentenced the perps of any war crimes by now.
Death or injury uncovered by Manning? According to iraqbodycount.org, the iraq war logs leaked by manning added an extra 11,000 civilian deaths to the official toll.

Imagine a helicopter hovering above your town and indiscriminately killing 12-18 people. Can't you put that into perspective?

Also stop claiming the criminals have been brought to justice in the apache attack. You don't have any evidence for it.
Last edited by psyks at Jul 31, 2013,
#40
Quote by psyks
Well, if he had put lives in danger, he would have been found guilty of aiding the enemy. As it happens, the Pentagon reported that no lives were put at risk by the leak.


luckily. i don't much about the case, but i don't think this guy to great care to weed out potentially endangering information.
Page 1 of 5