Both are heroes and American Patriots.
the people lying us into wars
of course
The military clearly stated that Mannings actions directly put people's lives in danger.
And? Do you really trust the government that much?
Where is the George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, et al, and their supporters option?
Well, I don't know about their supporters. That strikes as group guilt to me. Both Bush and Cheney should have been tried and executed for murder a long time ago, but alas, there's no justice and if you wear a government uniform you can get away with anything, especially if its an American government uniform.
Why can't we have a George Rodham Obama option?
Otherwise, I cannot vote.
Yeah... pretty much
For a nation founded by traitors, you guys can be pretty hard on traitors.
True
It's very convenient that you just have to write the right laws to be able to do anything you want in secret.
I thought conservatives have recently decided that they are against that sort of thing.
It depends on what you mean by "Conservative."
I thought Mike Lee was a real conservative, and he definitely didn't show it by all but flat out saying Snowden was a traitor (Zarn, did you see that comment by Mike Lee? Were you as disappointed as I was?) Rand Paul, also a real conservative, and more of one than Lee, said he was "Withholding judgment" but implied that he didn't disagree with Snowden's actions. He just wasn't as vocal about it as his dad, which, considering his position, makes sense. I forget what Ted Cruz said about the thing. I know that Lee, in spite of his stupid comment and his apparent "Law and Order" streak that it showed, is not a fan of the NSA program and Rand Paul obviously isn't either but that likely went without saying.
On the other hand, with neo-conservatives like Lindsey Graham or John McCain, you'll never find a pro-civil liberties bone in their body.
With some it really depends on who the President is, and with your rank and file, what the media says. The talk show hosts will support people like Snowden when a Democrat is in office but they'll scream for their hanging when a Republican is in office.
Right now most conservatives, with the exception of the hard-core neoconservatives, are acting like they support civil liberties because there's a Democrat in office, he's against civil liberties, and they have to look like they're opposed to the D's. When a Republican gets in office, if he does the same things as Obama, most conservatives will end up changing their views. Its really sad but its how it is.
I'm pretty sure, unless he becomes President himself, Rand Paul will pretty much do what he's doing in the senate no matter who's in office. He's not as hardline as his dad is, but he's always been pretty consistent with his own principles. He'll make a few mistakes but I don't think he'll ever give more than lip service to the neo-con right. Rand Paul was against the Patriot Act when Bush was President and if we see President Jeb Bush, President Rubio, President Christie, President Hillary, whatever, I seriously doubt he'll change his tune much.
I'm not quite sure about Mike Lee or Ted Cruz. I was always suspicious of Cruz but I seriously lost some significant faith in Lee after his recent comments. Zarn might have a better guess than I do. I wouldn't be shocked to see Lee and or Cruz basically do what they're doing now with an R in office, but I wouldn't be shocked to see one or both of them cave.
The rest of the Republicans in the Senate, of those who are actually pretending to give a crap about freedom right now (Hardcore neocons like Graham and McCain are even more afraid of being associated with peace or freedom than they are afraid of being associated with Obama, you'll almost certainly see them defend the adminstration right now) will almost certainly flip when the next R gets into office. Which actually makes me happy that we have a Democrat in office. They're making people like Rand Paul able to actually support limited government and look good in the party while doing it.
As for the House, Amash is rock solid and Thomas Massie is rock solid. Both of those will stick with the liberty wing of the party no matter who is in the White House. To my understanding there are a few other good House reps as well but I don't really know who they are.
Both guys are more patriotic than anyone here from any country.
In the big big picture, probably not. But my concern, especially in Manning's case, is that his actions may have caused the lives of US soldiers in the field. How you ask? For several reasons. Some of the materials he released gave our enemies more insight and knowledge into how we operated in dense urban areas and the capabilities of some of our weapons platforms - such knowledge would be used to put US troops at greater risk than they would be without such knowledge being known. Also, the materials that Manning released most likely led to anger and protests involving retaliation attacks against our soldiers in the field.
Are there those that will dismiss those sort of issues? Sure. Some people will minimize anything especially if the don't agree with it. But the vast majority of soldiers will indeed think what Bradley Manning did was very wrong. You simply don't do something that puts your fellow soldiers lives at risk like that.
Actions have ramifications. What Bradley Manning did absolutely had ramifications that most likely caused the lives of some US soldiers. That is why he is a traitor in my opinion and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law when he receives his guilty verdict(s).
I will always support the defenders over the invaders, even if the attackers are from my country. While I do not wish for US soldiers to be harmed, I care a heck of a lot more about peace and liberty than I do about people who voluntarily agree to go fight wars of aggression in the Middle East.
Bring them home, and you won't have this problem. Anyone who supports having them overseas and anyone who votes based on that support is the one who is responsible for those deaths, not Bradley Manning.
Well,US soldiers are leaving Afheganistan anyway,so the potencial risk that the Manning's actions have to US soldiers doesn't translate directly into more causalities,unless there's a second 9/11 .
Isn't civilian causalities,torture and prisioner abuse "war crimes"?
If there's a 2nd 9/11, it will just as much be motivated by blowback as the first one. This time, however, with the increases in surveilance, I will not believe them if they say they didn't see it coming...
