I'm sure it's been said somewhere here before, but there's not much distance between that sort of language and a bit of good old fashioned suppression of opposition, right-wing dictator style. Whatever people believe, they're still people.
The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention
- Thread starter nikosison
- Start date
I'm sure it's been said somewhere here before, but there's not much distance between that sort of language and a bit of good old fashioned suppression of opposition, right-wing dictator style. Whatever people believe, they're still people.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Actually, I would characterize those who think that Manning should be executed as being in favor of just that: "suppression of opposition, right-wing dictator style". They not only want to overly punish a whistle-blower in an incredibly draconian manner, they also want to set an example so there will hopefully be no future ones. This has been a favorite tool of almost all dictators to suppress opposition.
Well, that's also true. I never said that one side in every argument has to be honourable. But as before I think the term 'whistle-blower' implies that he had something the revealing of which was in the general interest - giving out diplomatic cables is not in the interests of society, quite the opposite. I'd very much like there to be no future Bradleys Manning, unless they really do have something that needs saying
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
If those diplomatic cable actually held any substantially sensitive information, I might even agree with you. But these particular cables which have been released were apparently all available to a private in the Army, and who knows how many other individuals, so I don't think the military really considered any of this information to be all that sensitive. If they did, they are completely incompetent for not properly compartmentalizing and encrypting it.
And I particularly see releasing the Apache gunship video footage as being whistle-blowing. The US military was clearly engaged in a cover-up. Otherwise, they would have released redacted footage themselves per the numerous requests from Reuters that they do so. Instead, the tried to hide the details of what had actually happened by deliberately spreading misinformation.
I also think almost all of this information should be in the public domain available for anybody to see. The American public has a right to know their military, state department employees, and other government officials are so inept and bureaucratic that they inevitably try to hide all their dirty laundry by classifying it, instead of admitting to it as they should.
And I particularly see releasing the Apache gunship video footage as being whistle-blowing. The US military was clearly engaged in a cover-up. Otherwise, they would have released redacted footage themselves per the numerous requests from Reuters that they do so. Instead, the tried to hide the details of what had actually happened by deliberately spreading misinformation.
I also think almost all of this information should be in the public domain available for anybody to see. The American public has a right to know their military, state department employees, and other government officials are so inept and bureaucratic that they inevitably try to hide all their dirty laundry by classifying it, instead of admitting to it as they should.
Lots of guts and bravery to potentially destroy the progress created by trillions of dollars and billions of man hours?
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
The "progress" in Afghanistan and elsewhere has been threatened by this? You mean we will now know why people living in these countries hate our government so much, which will again likely be ignored next time there is blowback resulting from these acts?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Lets try and not forget that all this has occurred while having a democrat in charge, mmmkay?
And he simply isnt a whistle-blower because there are indeed set rules for that status and he simply doesnt qualify.
Lets not confuse guts and bravery with being used, mislead, and being ignorant of the ramifications of what he was doing. Manning is simply the patsy, the fall guy, for wikileaks, and nothing more.
Tell you what, lets ask Manning in 40 years or so, after he has been in prison all that time if it was worth it to him. I'll be willing to bet he would take it all back in an instant.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Erm, bravery is doing what you believe to be right or necessary in the face of opposition and fear. If he did that (and he did) then he was quite brave. Whether you think it was or not has no bearing on the matter, and neither does him being a scapegoat.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Manning is certainly a scapegoat for all those who didn't better safeguard supposedly classified information. If he committed a high crime by disseminating apparently easily available information, those who failed to properly protect it are also guilty of serious felonies, not to mention gross incompetence and dereliction of duty.
But, as usual, all those individuals will be ignored while the scapegoat is "tried" and found guilty of whatever they wish.
But, as usual, all those individuals will be ignored while the scapegoat is "tried" and found guilty of whatever they wish.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
This assumes knowledge of the opposition and fear of it. I dont think Manning had a clue of either. I dont think he had any basic idea of the crapstorm he ended up in.
So, know, I dont think Manning was being brave at all. I think he was trying to be edgy and cool, like a lot of young people want to be, and never considered that he would get caught, nor the actual ramifications of what he was doing.
He's not a scapegoat either. A scapegoat is someone being held responsible for something they didnt do. I think the evidence will undoubtedly show that Manning is indeed responsible for what he is being accused of.
Er, somebody does have to handle the things? As I understand it it was Manning's job to do so and he was trusted (as someone who has, you know, agreed to put his life on the line for his country it's generally a reasonable assumption that he won't completely screw with its national security) to handle them; a trust which he betrayed. Wherever you go there'll be people who need to do that and frankly the senior people have more important things to do than sift data; that's why we still keep the Intelligence Corps around.
I don't believe that 'he must have killed his wife, otherwise he would have confessed immediately to his affair' is good logic. Yes, there's probably something not quite open going on, but it's a poor show to jump to the most sensationalist conclusion. Most likely their people had simply been told 'be as obstructive as possible so that they'll go away faster' - once upon a time yours truly was given the unenviable task of doing the PR for a spot of riot control in Belfast, and didn't exactly get an easy time of it given that at least half the crowd were reporters for republican newspapers... journalists give the military a really hard time and they're not popular people.
What, diplomatic cables? Surely if the diplomat knows that he will be accountable for what he says, he will avoid saying anything controversial - ie exactly what his superiors NEED to heard in many cases?
Well there is something very powerful in having a strong reputation, but that aside your generalisation is more than a bit unfair. To condemn almost the entire public sector as inept is quite a big statement.
A counter-insurgency basically boils down to whether the people think we're better than the enemy. The enemy are trying to make us look bad, and we try to make them look bad in return. For one of our own troops to be doing their job for them isn't ideal, to say the least.
Exactly - courage is irrespective of motivation. During the Second World War, an RAF pilot named Group Captian Leonard Cheshire was awarded the Victoria Cross after being lost at sea. What made this remarkable was the recommender - not a superior, or a comrade, but the captain of the U-Boat that he had died attacking and destroying, who was so impressed that he told his captors to award that pilot a medal. Years later, in the Falklands, a certain captain of the SAS by the name of John Hamilton won a Military Cross in similar circumstances.
Why not wait until this evidence is presented and judged, then?
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
You don't think he knew the danger to himself if he was discovered?
I think you're positing a lot about motivation that you can't possibly know.
Besides, if you think he was so ignorant of what he was doing and the ramifications, then how is this any different from prosecuting a couple of guys for trespassing or worse who accidentally wandered onto the edge of a military base?
Very well then, fall man.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Nope. Its my experience that young soldiers, like him, very rarely do. And please consider my experience in this. I deal directly with young soldiers like him all the time each and every day.
And I am speaking generally from my experience as a career military paralegal who deals with such soldiers each and every day of his work.
In fact, I posit that his main emotion was one of revenge for possibly feeling unjustly punished by his previous article 15 prior to his actions. Soldiers often get a over-riding self-righteous attitude about such punishments, and end up doing something stupid they never really think through. I see it all the time in my work.
Military bases, even in the USA, are almost all doubled fenced with concertina/razor wire strands on top of the fences in question. One just doesnt 'wander in' accidently onto a military base.
I am more than willing to do so, but I also know the conviction rate of military courts martial. Just trust me when I say this doesnt look good for Manning.
Dreadnought
Deity
What he did wasn't right. If he thought it was, then, that's called stupidity.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Mannings attorney has a vested interest in how his client is represented and portrayed. I dont.
If you dont think my 24 years of experience as an Army Paralegal doesnt give additional insight to the issue, then thats your opinion. I would think your're wrong to simply disregard it, but thats your call.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,210
You don't what to see him convicted of treason or whatever the charge is?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
I dont have a dog in that hunt, and only really care if the government makes its case effectively for the charges given. If it doesnt, he walks. On the flip side of the coin, if he is convicted of the crimes he allegedly did, then he deserves nothing less than the full scope of the punishment given to him.
Now, my opinion is that the evidence against him is very strong, and its likely he may even admit to it in order to try and get a lighter sentence. We shall see.
