Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

two weeks afer the incident happen. They were cleared after 8 months. Sgt Scruffy cleared hat up

Matty, if you're a young guy, and you go in with the belief that your government is essentially honest and mostly doing the right thing, then find out in the course of your work (as an Intelligence Analyst) that some pretty heinous and dishonorable things are happening and being swept under the rug, where does your duty lie?

He didn't swear an oath to "play ball". He swore an oath to obey lawful orders, and one to protect and defend the Constitution. If some of his orders were to conceal what he believed to be criminal acts, those orders are not lawful, nor are they in keeping with the principles of our nation and Constitution.

While his acts were a violation of the trust given him, him being asked to conceal some of the things he was asked to help conceal may legitimately have been a betrayal of the trust the American people put in our military.

While people can hold any opinion they like, absent any specific evidence that anyone was actually endangered by the revealed documents, I think it's a bit early to be calling him a traitor and saying he should be hanged. I think the article murdog quoted goes a bit overboard in crediting Manning in some of the positive events that have followed, but I don't think it's outside consideration that there have been beneficial outcomes.

I'm certainly interested to see the arguments made and the evidence presented in the trial, both in regards to the damage actually done and any criminal acts revealed by Manning.

He didn't swear an oath to "play ball". He swore an oath to obey lawful orders, and one to protect and defend the Constitution. If some of his orders were to conceal what he believed to be criminal acts, those orders are not lawful, nor are they in keeping with the principles of our nation and Constitution.

I have to go over this again?

Yup, get on with it, I want something to read.

Mannahnin wrote:Matty, if you're a young guy, and you go in with the belief that your government is essentially honest and mostly doing the right thing, then find out in the course of your work (as an Intelligence Analyst) that some pretty heinous and dishonorable things are happening and being swept under the rug, where does your duty lie?

He didn't swear an oath to "play ball". He swore an oath to obey lawful orders, and one to protect and defend the Constitution. If some of his orders were to conceal what he believed to be criminal acts, those orders are not lawful, nor are they in keeping with the principles of our nation and Constitution.

While his acts were a violation of the trust given him, him being asked to conceal some of the things he was asked to help conceal may legitimately have been a betrayal of the trust the American people put in our military.

While people can hold any opinion they like, absent any specific evidence that anyone was actually endangered by the revealed documents, I think it's a bit early to be calling him a traitor and saying he should be hanged. I think the article murdog quoted goes a bit overboard in crediting Manning in some of the positive events that have followed, but I don't think it's outside consideration that there have been beneficial outcomes.

I'm certainly interested to see the arguments made and the evidence presented in the trial, both in regards to the damage actually done and any criminal acts revealed by Manning.

Yeah I specifically said I dont think the bloke wants hanging, I just said he took the piss a bit.

I can see your point, and I can see both sides of the story, as I said, I just feel that what he did was dishonourable. I think that if he was uncomfortable with his job he should have let his post and quit the job, not leak everything. That's not your call to make as an intelligence analyst, and when your aware that there may be global ramifications to what you are about to do, you should quit for your own peace of mind if you have an issue, not blab everything you know and hang the consequences.

I can see both sides of the argument, that's just my two cents on the matter, and I certainly wouldn't make the same decisions as he did.

Jihadin wrote:two weeks afer the incident happen. They were cleared after 8 months. Sgt Scruffy cleared hat up

Then the pilots had already been cleared, so the only effect of the release of the video was to bring the incident to the attention of the outside world.

Yes but at that time Manning didn't know that. He's MI and the investigation was done by the AVN Bn and up.

Hard to explain Kil on releasing info in the military
best one for an exampe is the Ft Lewis crash recently involving two Kiowa Warriors. Reason for that accident will not be release till all avenues of the investigation is exhausted to reach a conclusion. IMHO on that crash it seems both aircraft main rotor blades struck each other on a turn.

In that case perhaps Manning genuinely thought he had uncovered evidence of murders by soldiers, which were being covered up and ignored by the army.

Bear with me, I'm playing Devil's Advocate.

Kilkrazy wrote:In that case perhaps Manning genuinely thought he had uncovered evidence of murders by soldiers, which were being covered up and ignored by the army.

Bear with me, I'm playing Devil's Advocate.

In the end, it doesn't matter why he did it. When you join the American Military, you play by a different set of rules. What he did was Illegal, period.

Sasori wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:In that case perhaps Manning genuinely thought he had uncovered evidence of murders by soldiers, which were being covered up and ignored by the army.

Bear with me, I'm playing Devil's Advocate.

In the end, it doesn't matter why he did it. When you join the American Military, you play by a different set of rules. What he did was Illegal, period.

Makes the tag under your name more understandable.

Sasori wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:In that case perhaps Manning genuinely thought he had uncovered evidence of murders by soldiers, which were being covered up and ignored by the army.

Bear with me, I'm playing Devil's Advocate.

In the end, it doesn't matter why he did it. When you join the American Military, you play by a different set of rules. What he did was Illegal, period.

You play by the rules of the military oath, which enjoin you to protect the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic.

In some circumstances that would empower you to ignore some rules in pursuit of a higher justice.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Sasori wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:In that case perhaps Manning genuinely thought he had uncovered evidence of murders by soldiers, which were being covered up and ignored by the army.

Bear with me, I'm playing Devil's Advocate.

In the end, it doesn't matter why he did it. When you join the American Military, you play by a different set of rules. What he did was Illegal, period.

You play by the rules of the military oath, which enjoin you to protect the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic.

In some circumstances that would empower you to ignore some rules in pursuit of a higher justice.

It never empowers you to leak classified information, under any circumstance.

Mannahnin wrote:Can anyone in the anti-Manning camp give an example of anyone who's died as a result of his actions?

Perhaps if I lived in Afghanistan I could get more specific news. But then again, I probably wouldn't be living in Afghanistan very much longer if I was living in Afghanistan.

You always stay within your chain of command though. You never go outside your chain. If there were issues with the documents he was "processing" then it should have gone up the chain or "leaked" to JAG. I'm leaning towards to "he did it out of spite" for some issues within his unit and felt justified with some "barracks lawyer" rationilization. Whats working against him is his counseling packet, CAC card, and UCMJ.

edit
So far there's no evidence of deaths/casualties relating to his "leak". There's a lag period till the insurgents/taliban/al queda starts connecting the dots. They don't keep a written roster on their manpower. Also a lot of them have same names or similiar. Nor do they keep a battle log. I'm leaning towards lack of brain power and piss poor admin on their side preventing reprisals. As for say the "villagers" well they're family oriented so getting "evidence" from other villagers on a individual is iffy. What they have been known to do is execute individuals having dialoge with Coalition Forces but not often. Last one I think was a 12 year old for getting candy from US troops.

AustonT wrote:
When treason is involved nationality becomes such an important issue.

Francisco Martin Duran was not tried with treason, and he intended to fire lethal weapons on the President. Why should Manning be?

Clearly there may be circumstances in which it is necessary not only to go outside one's proper chain of command but also to leak classified info in order to reveal an illegal cover-up (in fact it would often be essential to reveal classified materials).

Whether that is the case this time is why we have courts and legal processes to make a determination.

War

Jihadin wrote:War

What is it good for?

The History Channel.

Absolutely nothing?

I blame the one who threw up a Jackie Chan pic in Kim Jong Il thread

What for?

My mind just follow the train of thought lol Duran and Manning difference

Duran Duran?

Weren't Washington/Adams/Jefferson et al traitors as well?

A lot of people on this site seem to be suggesting that a soldier follows orders regardless of the moral implications. If you take this to it's logical conclusion, you arrive in Nuremberg 1945.

purplefood wrote:If he has done what he has been accused of he deserves every punishment they can throw at him...

He lifted the veil of secrecy that the government has bogusly put over itself.... therefore he must be punished. Also, he made the US look bad.... so he should be punished. That's why people are so angry. I'm sure you will here a lot about how he endangered sources, but there is no evidence to back it up.

Funny, when Valerie Plame was outted, what happened? I guess it all depends on who does the leaking.

Kilkrazy wrote:In that case perhaps Manning genuinely thought he had uncovered evidence of murders by soldiers, which were being covered up and ignored by the army.

Bear with me, I'm playing Devil's Advocate.

That's why privates don't make decisions on declassifying documents. If he REALLY thought he had uncovered legitimate concerns he should have contacted the Inspector General at his lowest level which is the ACCEPTABLE means to go outside of your chain of command. Failing traction at IG, he could have contacted his congressmen,and the secretary of defense.

dogma wrote:

AustonT wrote:
When treason is involved nationality becomes such an important issue.

Francisco Martin Duran was not tried with treason, and he intended to fire lethal weapons on the President. Why should Manning be?

Charles J. Guiteau wasn't charged with treason either and he succeeded. While assassination fits the bill for treason IIRC it has not been applied to an assassin in the US. As a matter of fact few people are tried for treason, that doesn't absolve them of being labeled traitors any more than a plea bargain for 3rd degree sexual assault makes the offender any less a rapist (let's just assume and not ignite a new rape definition debate).
Treason is quite simply violating your allegiance to your nation. We can disagree on weather or not this kid is a traitor, but weather or not nationality effects treason seems fairly clear. I as an American can not be Treasonous in Ghana I hold no allegiance to them.

Easy E wrote:I'm sure you will here a lot about how he endangered sources, but there is no evidence to back it up.

Just like there isn't "evidence" of the massacres in Darfur.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Weren't Washington/Adams/Jefferson et al traitors as well?

I suppose if you remove context and understanding from all situations they can all appear to be the same, sure.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:A lot of people on this site seem to be suggesting that a soldier follows orders regardless of the moral implications. If you take this to it's logical conclusion, you arrive in Nuremberg 1945.

It took longer than expected for Nazi's to be referenced, however obliquely.

Legally speaking, the military has a right to expect obedience out of its soldiers.

Morally speaking, the soldiers have a right to expect their superiors not to make them do something immoral.


I think most of us agree on this.

But what Manning did wasn't moral in my view, so expecting him to not release metric fucktons of classified information was pretty reasonable.