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.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: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.

Godwin's law finally brings us to the logical conclusion of the Internet: Nazis

I think the internet also needs a Samuel Johnson law along the lines of 'patriots will turn a blind eye to anything done in their name.'

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I think the internet also needs a Samuel Johnson law along the lines of 'patriots will turn a blind eye to anything done in their name.'

Why not, there's already an internet law that says "blame America, you can come up with a reason why later".

Ahtman wrote:

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.

Well, those men where demonstrably traitors to the British Empire and the Crown. That's not even a matter for debate. They would likely have faced the gallows, that is, if they hadn't had such terrific levels of success, in terms of their revolutionary goals. Which they did.

That's not even remotely the same thing as what Manning did, mind. I'm ambivalent about that, incidentally. If I was American, I'd probably be annoyed, as what he did caused considerable embarrassment to the USA. However, uncovering evidence of torture, illegal kidnapping and other legally questionable dealings should never be considered treasonous, just as a general pont of consideration.

AustonT 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.

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.

This, so very much this. If he really thought a crime had been committed, his first duty would have been to report it up the chain. I'm not saying it's never wrong to leak information to the press, I just think it's the very absolutely last avenue, since you're not really qualified to interpret what you saw. I think his duty to his country meant following the chain of command unless he had some evidence the chain was corrupt.

I still do not see what was illegal about the gunship video. It was an accident; and intent was clearly not present. Intent is a major component of illegality. They clearly believed from the video that they were engaging legitimate military targets with approval from their superiors. It was a mistake: a sad, tragic mistake that will be repeated every time any military goes to war. It's a cost of the process.

Melissia wrote:

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.

Um... okay.... can you name a third party watch dog group that has uncovered anything? I don't expect the governments of Afghanistan or any of the other countries where contacts were found to say, yup; that person is dead now. However, I do expect third party groups like NGO's or Journalists to find something. Perhaps I simply haven't heard about it; and I would like to see it. Unlike some posters on Dakka I would like to be informed if I am wrong.

Some, would consider him a hero as the information leaked fed the growing unrest in the arab world that led to the events of the Arab Spring, and the end of some dictators. The end of dictators was lionized in Iraq and Libya.

If he's a traitor, it is a very low-level offense. We aren't talking about the sale of nuclear weapon plans to the chinese or Soviets. They were mostly low-level diplomatic cables and common knowledge (at least fo the people in the immediate area) field reports from front line combat commanders leaked and used by jouranlists.

The real "crime" he commited was making the US look bad and letting the public get a window into what the US government/military was really doing. That CAN NOT be tolerated.

Easy E wrote:Um... okay.... can you name a third party watch dog group that has uncovered anything?

Yes.

The point of whistle-blowing is that you have to go outside your organisation because it is corrupt and you can't trust it to deal with the situation.

Kilkrazy wrote:The point of whistle-blowing is that you have to go outside your organisation because it is corrupt and you can't trust it to deal with the situation.

Yes, but tossing out random information isn't whistleblowing.

Imagine if an employee of coca cola said "this gak sucks and the corporate executives don't care as long as they make money" so they tossed out a crapton of financial information and the recipe for making coca cola to the public for all to see.

Melissia wrote:

Easy E wrote:Um... okay.... can you name a third party watch dog group that has uncovered anything?

Yes.

Thanks, but the subscription block isn't letting me read the full text. Plus, it seems to be in the opinion section, but again I could be wrong. I can't read the full text.

In 1988, the Military Whistleblower Protection Act of 1988 was passed by the United States Congress to protect military members who make lawful disclosures of wrongdoing to Members of Congress or an Inspector General. It required the Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense to investigate allegations of whistleblower reprisal. The statute was broadened in 1991 to protect disclosures to auditors, criminal investigators, inspectors and other Department of Defense law enforcement officers. In 1998, the Congress amended the statute to permit lesser Inspectors General to receive allegations and conduct investigations and retained oversight in the Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense.[9]

Melissia wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The point of whistle-blowing is that you have to go outside your organisation because it is corrupt and you can't trust it to deal with the situation.

Yes, but tossing out random information isn't whistleblowing.

Imagine if an employee of coca cola said "this gak sucks and the corporate executives don't care as long as they make money" so they tossed out a crapton of financial information and the recipe for making coca cola to the public for all to see.

That's why there is a court, etc.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:

In 1988, the Military Whistleblower Protection Act of 1988 was passed by the United States Congress to protect military members who make lawful disclosures of wrongdoing to Members of Congress or an Inspector General. It required the Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense to investigate allegations of whistleblower reprisal. The statute was broadened in 1991 to protect disclosures to auditors, criminal investigators, inspectors and other Department of Defense law enforcement officers. In 1998, the Congress amended the statute to permit lesser Inspectors General to receive allegations and conduct investigations and retained oversight in the Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense.[9]

That assumes you would trust the government.

Everyone knows that whistleblowers always get nailed.

Ah yes, I forgot. Da gummint ish ebull!

I'm not sure if KilKrazy is still playing the Devils advocate or being serious.

Its why he's getting hammered that he went outside the chain of command. Congressional Investigations are not to trifle with in the military. No one interferes with the investigation. This is not someone off the street whistle blowing on a private enteprise. This is a soldier who fall under another set of law thats clearly written and adhered to. His performance packet is going to be his downfall. I'm sure one of his counseling forms is a block where he and his NCO go over the sensitive nature of thematerial he is handling. (Also have to keep in my mind your playing devil advocate Kil). Also a copy of the Non Disclosure form he signed. He's being tried for what he done within the articles of UCMJ not for what he had done


edit
Ugh the articles he broke doing what he did. Give me time to clarify. Its hard o explain about UCMJ unless you lived within it

Albatross wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

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.

Well, those men where demonstrably traitors to the British Empire and the Crown. That's not even a matter for debate. They would likely have faced the gallows, that is, if they hadn't had such terrific levels of success, in terms of their revolutionary goals. Which they did.

That's not even remotely the same thing as what Manning did, mind. I'm ambivalent about that, incidentally. If I was American, I'd probably be annoyed, as what he did caused considerable embarrassment to the USA. However, uncovering evidence of torture, illegal kidnapping and other legally questionable dealings should never be considered treasonous, just as a general pont of consideration.

Not debating whether Washington et al. were considered traitors, just pointing out what you also did: they are at best superficially similar and that if you look at the circumstances they are not related beyond using the term 'traitor'.

Jihadin wrote:Its why he's getting hammered that he went outside the chain of command. Congressional Investigations are not to trifle with in the military. No one interferes with the investigation. This is not someone off the street whistle blowing on a private enteprise. This is a soldier who fall under another set of law thats clearly written and adhered to. His performance packet is going to be his downfall. I'm sure one of his counseling forms is a block where he and his NCO go over the sensitive nature of thematerial he is handling. (Also have to keep in my mind your playing devil advocate Kil). Also a copy of the Non Disclosure form he signed. He's being tried for what he done within the articles of UCMJ not for what he had done


edit
Ugh the articles he broke doing what he did. Give me time to clarify. Its hard o explain about UCMJ unless you lived within it

There is going to be more than just a counseling packet. There are a lot of strict regulations when governing classified material, and lots of paperwork to go with that.

Which is why we have come around full circle again. What he did was illegal, and he will be convicted. There is no question about that.

Also, Kilkrazy, the IG and other organizations as AustonT pointed out, are far out of the Chain of Command.

He's being prosecuted for incorrect reporting procedures not for treason.

I fully expect him to be convicted.

The only question in my mind is what the penalty will be.

Kilkrazy wrote:He's being prosecuted for incorrect reporting procedures not for treason.

Bradly Manning has over 22 charges against him, which include Aiding the Enemy.

Life. Prosecution already stated they will not seek the death penalty in favor of life imprisonment.

Chain of command! We al know that if Manning had followed procedure, his complaints would have been dropped in a filing cabinet marked do not open for a hundred years.

I understand that people are annoyed about constant attacks on the USA - nothing wrong with that.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with breaking laws/rules etc to highlight immoral actions.

As I've said, technically, the founding fathers were lawbreakers, and of course, the civil rights marchers were also lawbreakers. Their actions must be measured in a moral context. Therefore, Manning, IMO, did the right thing.

Jihadin wrote:Life. Prosecution already stated they will not seek the death penalty in favor of life imprisonment.

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I've never been to a courts martial, But isn't a "Jury of his Peers" Generally pulled from a pool of Officers and NCOs?

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Chain of command! We al know that if Manning had followed procedure, his complaints would have been dropped in a filing cabinet marked do not open for a hundred years.

Do we know that? Is it an absolute certainty? Everyone in the military a mustache twirling villain or just US military members?

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:As I've said, technically, the founding fathers were lawbreakers, and of course, the civil rights marchers were also lawbreakers. Their actions must be measured in a moral context. Therefore, Manning, IMO, did the right thing.

Again, you are comparing to things that are not alike, except in the broadest sense. Washington, King, and Manning? I mean really?

Kilkrazy wrote:He's being prosecuted for incorrect reporting procedures not for treason.

Not really, he ignored reporting procedures and his obligations to his country and his fellow soldiers dumping data he had no idea would or would not endanger other soldiers onto the Internet. He betrayed his allegiance to the state, that is treason. Just because he won't face that charge doesn't make it any less applicable.

That is what you have in a civilian trial. A court martial is different.

@Auston, he's not Benedict Arnold
@Ahtman, the British government has been shamefully covering up illegal action in Northern Ireland for a long time. It took 30 years for the truth about Bloody Sunday to be revealed. It's not just an American Military thing.

People talk about traitors, but Jefferson and Lee were traitors to the Union, but these guys have high schools named after them...

A former hacker and convicted felon explains why he turned Manning into authorities:

Adrian Lamo, Bradley Manning Informant, Defends Role in Turning in Alleged WikiLeaks Whistleblower

We speak with Adrian Lamo, the former hacker who last year informed the U.S. military authorities of his conversations with Army Private Bradley Manning, in which Manning claimed to have leaked a large body of classified documents. In internet chats with Lamo using a pseudonym, Manning allegedly disclosed he was providing materials to WikiLeaks founder and editor-in-chief Julian Assange. Lamo is now a witness in Manning’s trial. "I very much regret the situation that his actions have put him in. He is on my mind every day. I remember what it was to be that young and that idealistic. And when he came to me, he created a situation where there was no right decision. There were simply choices that were between greater and lesser harm. I had to go with the one that resulted in the lesser harm, but still resulted in harm," says Lamo. "The leaks have real potential to do harm or hazard. And then, additionally, they still do long-term damage to U.S. diplomacy with other countries, which in turn weakens our international position."

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/19/adrian_lamo_bradley_manning_informant_defends

His peers would e drawn from lower enlisted with some NCO's.

As I've said, technically, the founding fathers were lawbreakers, and of course, the civil rights marchers were also lawbreakers. Their actions must be measured in a moral context. Therefore, Manning, IMO, did the right thing.

Founding Fathers has nothing to do with UCMJ. Of course at that time if Manning did a intell dump for the british to see they would have shot him within like 3 days at most after discovery. Whats happening to Manning now is something thats not fimiliar to everyone. His moral context has no issue in the proceeding.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Its called a panel in a court martial. From the Manual for Courts Martial it says:
In cases where the accused is an enlisted member, the accused may request that enlisted service members be appointed to the panel.

There is no jury of peers. Just like we don't let privates make strategic decisions, we don't generally let them decide the guilt or innocence of other privates. One would hope that any NCO worth his/her salt sees the situation beyond it's face and STARTS on the side of the accused and forces the prosecution to leverage them away.