Defense attorney: Bradley Manning a whistleblower

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.

**pities2004**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
I do sit here an ponder over all these cases of whistleblowers lately, why the 'heroes' are failures in their professional lives. Intriguing.

Because most of them aren't true whistleblowers... There are certain steps that MUST be taken (at least within the army) in order to get that sort of protection.

Manning most definitely is a traitor, it's just too bad he won't get the traitors punishment. He should definitely lose the "whistleblower" defense claim, because he did none of the things that would give you that status. He's just some punk kid who thought being in the army would be like college, or at worst, the national guard.

As for some of the other recent whistle blower cases (like snowden) I admit, I am not very well read up on, and can't really comment too much on whether the govt is right in going after them or not. Well, the F/F guy is getting shafted, IMO, which points to some definite issues and probable need for the whistle blower protection. I do agree also with previous posters in that what snowden leaked to the public is kinda good to know, although I don't really think people have much to worry about ultimately.

By your logic, then it's a pity that George Washington didn't receive a traitor's punishment. After all, he did break his oath of allegiance to the British Crown. From the top of my head, nothing much happened to Jefferson Davis or Robert E Lee after the civil war, either.

Sometimes, people break the law for justice. I happen to think that Washington was right in the actions he took. In Manning's case, yeah, he broke the military code, but a life sentence seems to me as somebody's way of getting back at him for the embarrassment he caused. By the way some people reacted, you'd think he's sold atomic secrets to the Soviets. 5 years would suffice for Manning.

Whistleblowers with genuine secrets to expose that are in the public interest, do need protection.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I did some research on previous cases. There was a guy (can't remember his name) who killed a lot of villagers in some south-east Asian country. He was pardoned for his crimes.

You sort of remember something you think happened and have no details to support it. That is some really compelling evidence you have there to back up that the President is indifferent to war crimes.

I was referring to the My Lai massacre where the only guy convicted was given a presidential pardon.

So you said President Obama doesn't care, then when called on it, you reference something from over 40 years ago. That makes no sense.

Historical perspective, historical precedent. Obama has been using the 1917 espionage act to go after whistleblowers. Should that be ignored because it's old?

A lot of people, lately, have been concerned over 4th amendment violations. Should that be ignored because it's 200+ years old?

Really? Now we are going to bring George Washington into this?

**Ahtman**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Whistleblowers with genuine secrets to expose that are in the public interest, do need protection.

Seems odd to berate him, then make the exact same argument. Manning didn't expose 'genuine secrets', he exposed everything he could get his hands, as fast as he could get his hands on it. Your comparison to George Washington, as well as Davis and Lee, are not very well thought out, and lack context.

**Kanluwen**

Ahtman wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Whistleblowers with genuine secrets to expose that are in the public interest, do need protection.

Seems odd to berate him, then make the exact same argument. Manning didn't expose 'genuine secrets', he exposed everything he could get his hands, as fast as he could get his hands on it. Your comparison to George Washington, as well as Davis and Lee, are not very well thought out, and lack context.

Considering he brought up the "Collateral Murder" video, which was 17 out of 30 odd minutes of footage--I am not surprised.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Ahtman wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Whistleblowers with genuine secrets to expose that are in the public interest, do need protection.

Seems odd to berate him, then make the exact same argument. Manning didn't expose 'genuine secrets', he exposed everything he could get his hands, as fast as he could get his hands on it. Your comparison to George Washington, as well as Davis and Lee, are not very well thought out, and lack context.

Somebody made the point that he was a traitor and should be severely dealt with. My points is that sometimes you have to look at the reasons why people become traitors. Sometimes, it's morally justified, other times it is not, hence the historical examples.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Whistleblowers with genuine secrets to expose that are in the public interest, do need protection.

Seems odd to berate him, then make the exact same argument. Manning didn't expose 'genuine secrets', he exposed everything he could get his hands, as fast as he could get his hands on it. Your comparison to George Washington, as well as Davis and Lee, are not very well thought out, and lack context.

Considering he brought up the "Collateral Murder" video, which was 17 out of 30 odd minutes of footage--I am not surprised.

What's on the 13 other minutes?

**CptJake**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

What's on the 13 other minutes?

The unedited version is out there.

The 15-6 investigations from that incident are interesting reading. The AKs and RPGs found with the bodies seem to invalidate the unlawful killing claim. For example, guy closest to the camera had an RPG round underneath him. At least 1 AKM and multiple AKs and RPGs there too.

Noting that insurgents loved to film/photograph their engagements (for use as recruiting tools and as AAR tools) even if the Apache pilots could identify the camera, the presence of that camera within a group of armed men engaging friendly ground troops would in no way negate the responsibility to engage that group to defend the ground forces.

Back on topic: The judge is supposed to give her verdict today. I don't think sentencing is concurrent though.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

CptJake wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

What's on the 13 other minutes?

The unedited version is out there.

The 15-6 investigations from that incident are interesting reading. The AKs and RPGs found with the bodies seem to invalidate the unlawful killing claim. For example, guy closest to the camera had an RPG round underneath him. At least 1 AKM and multiple AKs and RPGs there too.

Noting that insurgents loved to film/photograph their engagements (for use as recruiting tools and as AAR tools) even if the Apache pilots could identify the camera, the presence of that camera within a group of armed men engaging friendly ground troops would in no way negate the responsibility to engage that group to defend the ground forces.

Back on topic: The judge is supposed to give her verdict today. I don't think sentencing is concurrent though.

I wasn't aware of extra footage, but I am under the impression that people walking around with guns in Iraq (just as in the USA) is a normal occurrence, and doesn't necessary mean the individuals concerned are up to no good.

**djones520**

A group of armed guys meeting at night in Iraq isn't all that common an occurence at the height of the war, unless they were the types planning on pulling some bad gak.

**CptJake**

You can be under any impression you choose to be.

RPGs and AKMs in an area US troops are taking fire from = up to no good.

@Djones250, it was daylight.

Back on topic: Rallies/protests being held in multiple cities as folks act 'in solidarity' with Manning.

**Seaward**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I wasn't aware of extra footage, but I am under the impression that people walking around with guns in Iraq (just as in the USA) is a normal occurrence, and doesn't necessary mean the individuals concerned are up to no good.

The extra footage is pretty irrelevant. The weapons are clearly visible in the edited version; they're just not highlighted by Assange's team the way the cameras are.

People walking around with guns in Iraq may or may not be a common occurrence, but people walking around with guns and RPGs in Iraq a few blocks from where elements of an American infantry company's coming under attack? That's a one-way ticket to 30mm City, and rightfully so.

**pities2004**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

What's on the 13 other minutes?

The unedited version is out there.

The 15-6 investigations from that incident are interesting reading. The AKs and RPGs found with the bodies seem to invalidate the unlawful killing claim. For example, guy closest to the camera had an RPG round underneath him. At least 1 AKM and multiple AKs and RPGs there too.

Noting that insurgents loved to film/photograph their engagements (for use as recruiting tools and as AAR tools) even if the Apache pilots could identify the camera, the presence of that camera within a group of armed men engaging friendly ground troops would in no way negate the responsibility to engage that group to defend the ground forces.

Back on topic: The judge is supposed to give her verdict today. I don't think sentencing is concurrent though.

I wasn't aware of extra footage, but I am under the impression that people walking around with guns in Iraq (just as in the USA) is a normal occurrence, and doesn't necessary mean the individuals concerned are up to no good.

Except the USA isn't being occupied during a time of war?

**Seaward**

CptJake wrote:
Back on topic: Rallies/protests being held in multiple cities as folks act 'in solidarity' with Manning.

If nothing else, you have to admire WikiLeaks' PR abilities. Taking a world-class feth-up like Manning and turning him into a hero? That's impressive.

**Monster Rain**

And that's not even going into Assange's legal troubles.

**djones520**

Not guilty on aiding the enemy. Guilty on at least 15 other counts.

On TV now. (Fox at least, CNN is still saying their waiting).

**pities2004**

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/30/justice/manning-court-martial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

"A military court has found Pfc. Bradley Manning, accused of the largest leak of classified information in U.S. history, not guilty of aiding the enemy -- a charge that would have carried a maximum sentence of life in prison. He was found guilty of most of the remaining charges against him, with the judge accepting some of the guilty pleas he made previously to lesser charges."

**CptJake**

His lawyers were really smart to go for a non-jury trial.

**djones520**

CptJake wrote:
His lawyers were really smart to go for a non-jury trial.

Yeah.

I bet his sentencing is going to be harsh though. An example will be made of him, and I doubt he'll ever breath free air again. Of the 15 counts he was found guilty on, he can face up to 150 years.

**d-usa**

He'll get 35 years.

**djones520**

d-usa wrote:
He'll get 35 years.

I'd wager more. It's been decades since the military has had a large breach of data like this, especially done so flagrantly. Manning made no efforts to cover his actions, he wanted to be caught, wanted to snub his nose at authority. Authority is going to snub it right back at him, and make a clear picture to the rest of us of what is in store if we decide to get stupid.

That's my thought on it at least. I could be totally wrong.

**Alfndrate**

Is this still a viable option?

**pities2004**

Alfndrate wrote:

Is this still a viable option?

Lets be honest would that really be a punishment for him?

**Alfndrate**

pities2004 wrote:
Alfndrate wrote:

Is this still a viable option?

Lets be honest would that really be a punishment for him?

Well it depends on if he's into it or not...

**Rented Tritium**

Didn't we already argue about that video a few years ago? Basically any one thing would not have been out of place. A group of guys, a guy with a gun, a guy with a camera, etc.

But putting them all together: Guys with guns and an RPG and a camera moving together near US forces in an area which was currently under military control and curfew etc etc, it was far enough to look at.

Then on top of that, there is a delay between the pilot firing and the bullets reaching the target, since the video was taken from so far away, so you have to judge by what the gunner saw several seconds before the bullets hit, which is even more defensible.

**Sasori**

Manning faces a potential sentence of up to 136 years in prison on the charges he was found guilty of Tuesday. The charges to which the Army intelligence analyst pled guilty carried a potential sentence of about 20 years.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/bradley-manning-trial-verdict-94923.html#ixzz2aYgXE98E

Hopefully he's going away for a long time. I'd prefer life.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Up to 154 years *whistle* enjoy your free vacation to Kansas donkey cave.

**Dreadclaw69**

djones520 wrote:
He was an angry little boy who wanted to lash out. He was trying to do harm. He had just been demoted and had been recommended for discharge when he made his "first" leak. He had exhibited violent tendencies at work, and had been actively trying to get himself removed from the military, by openly sharing his sexual orientation, and then trying to pull a Clinger. There was nothing at all about this that was "best intentions". He hated the Army, he wanted out, and he decided that he was going to do as much damage as he could while he did it.

Jihadin wrote:
He's getting prosecuted under UCMJ. No escaping that. He's going to get charged for violating UCMJ articles. No escaping that. His counseling packet I think blew the "Whistleblower" option out the window. If he wanted "whistleblowing" status then he should have been logging his time spent on calls to "Fraud, Waste, and Abuse" instead he downloaded

That's exactly how I see it too, if he was actually concerned about abuses and/or illegal activity then he had many ways to report his concerns. He chose not to and disclosed information in the hope that there was something incriminating there. He was interested in mud slinging and no more.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Up to 154 years *whistle* enjoy your free vacation to Kansas donkey cave.

Good.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Somebody made the point that he was a traitor and should be severely dealt with. My points is that sometimes you have to look at the reasons why people become traitors. Sometimes, it's morally justified, other times it is not, hence the historical examples.

Except that Washington was part of a group of people who founded a new nation. If they had lost then that argument would have merit.

Robert E. Lee and Jeff Davis ceceeded from the US, also forming a "new nation" which was completely legal to do at the time.

The guy who blew up the Fast and Furious thing with the guns? Yeah, that was definitely moral, and a whistle blower situation. This kid? Not a fat chance in Hades.

**efarrer**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Except that Washington was part of a group of people who founded a new nation. If they had lost then that argument would have merit.

That in no way changes the fact he was a traitor.

**Ahtman**

efarrer wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Except that Washington was part of a group of people who founded a new nation. If they had lost then that argument would have merit.

That in no way changes the fact he was a traitor.

If we ignore context and history that would lead us to pretending all acts of treason are the same, and conflate two wildly different acts of treason.

**Crablezworth**

I'm pretty sure a lot of the people who think manning is a traitor would say the same thing about elsberg and or snowden, to me they're all heroes.

**Ahtman**

Crablezworth wrote:
I'm pretty sure a lot of the people who think manning is a traitor would say the same thing about elsberg and or snowden.

I see you haven't been keeping on the threads about this subject, including this very thread.