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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

How so? I just read the entire thread..

Oh Ahtman, when you point out things like that it breaks the spell.

 Crablezworth wrote:

How so? I just read the entire thread..

On the first page, just doing a quick scan, there are two posts saying Snowden was probably in the right, but that Manning is a huge tool and feth up.

Snowden was selective on what he released for the general public about possible government overstepping their bounds....while Manning just dumped whatever he could grab off the drive...DoS...Military..Diplomats cable....he wasn't selective at all. Besides Snowden still free and would come under Feeral Prosecution....Manning is UCMJ.....

 Jihadin wrote:
Snowden was selective on what he released for the general public about possible government overstepping their bounds....while Manning just dumped whatever he could grab off the drive...DoS...Military..Diplomats cable....he wasn't selective at all. Besides Snowden still free and would come under Feeral Prosecution....Manning is UCMJ.....

Right so does the fact that he showed some restraint in what information he put out there make snowden not a traitor in your eyes?

 Crablezworth wrote:
Right so does the fact that he showed some restraint in what information he put out there make snowden not a traitor in your eyes?

Traitor is a complicated, and loaded term. Are we speaking ethically? Legally? Which law? Domestic or International?

I would certainly be more open categorizing Snowden as a whistleblower, but Manning I wouldn't. Just revealing secrets doesn't make one a hero; that is to simplistic a standard.

Both broke the rules. We have Manning but under a different set of laws. Snowden still free but if in hands he be prosecuted under federal law. Manning I'm more pissed off about due to the fact he put others in danger...even though the charge of "aiding the enemy" didn't stick. I would consider "traitor" term if someone was killed over a leak

 Ahtman wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Right so does the fact that he showed some restraint in what information he put out there make snowden not a traitor in your eyes?

Traitor is a complicated, and loaded term. Are we speaking ethically? Legally? Which law? Domestic or International?

I would certainly be more open categorizing Snowden as a whistleblower, but Manning I wouldn't. Just revealing secrets doesn't make one a hero; that is to simplistic a standard.

I'd like to think he may have said a word or two about his motivation and intent over the last little while.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Both broke the rules. We have Manning but under a different set of laws. Snowden still free but if in hands he be prosecuted under federal law. Manning I'm more pissed off about due to the fact he put others in danger...even though the charge of "aiding the enemy" didn't stick. I would consider "traitor" term if someone was killed over a leak

I believe they're both charged under laws going back to 1917, manning's charged with more than just espionage, snowden too although fewer charges. Manning's facing like 21-22 charges.

 Crablezworth wrote:
I'd like to think he may have said a word or two about his motivation and intent over the last little while.

Manning's given reasons, in conjunction with his actions both before and after the leak are needed to get an understanding. If you only ever go by what a person says about themselves you'll find that you'll be frequently disappointed. Also, there is such a thing as dishonesty. It is why we investigate things instead of just taking people at their word. Manning isn't a credible soucre, and his actions are less than honorable. It isn't just leaking something, it is also important how they leak, and what they leak. He fails miserably in those two areas.

 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.

Your memory is slightly off.

General Peers of the Peers report fame recommend that 2 Generals, 5 Colonels, 6 Lt Colonels, 3 Majors, 8 Captains, 6 Lts, and 2 Sergeants be prosecuted. Four of them were already dead (it was a war) and 5 had been released have finished their service obligation at the time of the release of the recommendation to bring charges. You got to love General Peers. Imperial Commissar all the way. Here is a link to the report. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/MYL_Peers.htm

The army chose to charge 14 of the above including the Division Commander, include in these were Lt Calley and Calley's commander, Captain Medina. Captain Media's commander had already been killed in action otherwise he would have been sent to a court martial as well.

All of them beat it at Court Martial or had the charged dropped for lack of evidence, except Calley.

Two days later President Nixon made a decision to have Calley released, pending appeal of his sentence, rather than he await the appeal in prison. Calley's sentence was later adjusted, so that he would eventually serve three and one-half years under house arrest at Fort Benning. His house arrest was in a duplex which was about 1 mile from where I lived at the time. There was a mini MP station in the other half of the Duplex and guards at the front and rear of his side of the duplex 24 hours a day for 3 1/2 years. I was never sure if they were to keep him there or to keep other troops from lynching him. He was not popular with the line troops.

Calley was such a poor commander and lacking in so many basic skills that one of the things that was discovered during the investigation was that his troops had seriously considered killing him for their own safety.

SGT Padgett testified about an incident involving PFC Manning in which he flipped over a table which had computers on it. SGT Padgett said he was counseling PFC Manning after he had been late for duty and that PFC Manning stared blankly ahead and then flipped over the table. Contrary to the testimony of CPT Lim and CPT Fulton, SGT Padgett said PFC Manning did not reach for a gun from the gun rack, and was restrained by soldiers to keep him from getting anything that could harm himself. SGT Padgett said he could not recall talking to MSG Adkins or any commanding officers about the incident. There was also no disciplinary action against PFC Manning.

I've a few chuckleheads who vented on me after a negative counseling. Just made me extra aware to keep my thumb on them before they do something "stupid" that be detrimental to their career. If they meet me halfway. The above action I would have removed him from the secure area due with an excuse of "lack of military bearing" and have him on guard mount for about 30 days....

Replying to the post made me realize how badly things have changed in 42 years.

In 1971 most of those officers charged were charged for giving false testimony by submitting information in a manner calculated to mislead.

I read yesterday where General Amos, head of the Marine Corp, perjured himself to a military judge over a secret meeting with a officer defending some enlisted men who pissed on some dead Al Quada. After the officer refused to crucify the troops he had him relieved in violation of law. General Amos is still there.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/28/top-marine-gen-amos-is-accused-of-interfering-in-s/?page=all

The Department of Defense "made a mistake" on telling Congress the Special Operations Commander they wanted to talk to had retired and thus he could not testify. A newspaper had to tell congress he was still on active duty and now he will testify tomorrow.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/19/pentagon-makes-key-benghazi-witness-available-to-congress-after-administrative-error-kept-him-hidden-for-months/

I find it hard to get upset over Private Manning. I read what he released, sue me.

More damage has been done by General Amos (who is a navel aviator and never served in ground combat), General Petraeus (who got more of us killed so he could score political points) and the President and the current chiefs who are all politicians disguised as soldiers who have lied to Congress and are apparently getting away with it.


By the way, Calley's original sentence was life imprisonment at hard labor at Fort Leavenworth, His jury was 6 Officers, 5 of whom had served in Vietnam.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
I'd like to think he may have said a word or two about his motivation and intent over the last little while.

Manning's given reasons, in conjunction with his actions both before and after the leak are needed to get an understanding. If you only ever go by what a person says about themselves you'll find that you'll be frequently disappointed. Also, there is such a thing as dishonesty. It is why we investigate things instead of just taking people at their word. Manning isn't a credible soucre, and his actions are less than honorable. It isn't just leaking something, it is also important how they leak, and what they leak. He fails miserably in those two areas.

He's not a credible source when it comes to his own motivations? Here, let me just ask my neighbour why I had fried chicken for dinner tonight, wouldn't wanna be bias or anything... Has the prosecution independantly verified through credible sources that he's indeed lying about his motivations? Has he made any attempt to deny his actions? Has he not plead guilty to most charges?

To me, his actions seem incredibly honorable. The guy's been through hell, he's also been an open book from the looks of it, even on stuff like his struggle with gender and his homosexuality.

Something not well known to those outside the military. Every month you get a performance counseling. Every negative action is documented. Hence his counseling packet more then likely condemned him. Indicator why his defense lawyers did not go to with "Jury of his Peers" but with just the Judge.




either blue or red pill....he was toast. Judge going to go with what he admitted guilt to..instead of drawing out his sentence phase

 Crablezworth wrote:
He's not a credible source when it comes to his own motivations?

Is any human? People lie all the time about why they do things. We aren't talking about something as mundane as ordeing dinner here either, so we move away from the point of it not really mattering whether the person lies or not. In cases like this it does matter, and while we should take his words unders consideration, him saying them isn't enough to make them automatically true, which, again, is why we have an investigation. Or as House put it: "I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:
To me, his actions seem incredibly honorable.

I can't see how anyone could know all the facts and still come to that conclusion. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I can't see how you added 2+2 to equal potato instead of 4. I can see how someone might think he was trying to do the right thing, but incredibly honorable? I just don't buy it.

Has the prosecution independantly verified through credible sources that he's indeed lying about his motivations?

 Crablezworth wrote:
Has the prosecution independently verified through credible sources that he's indeed lying about his motivations?

There is a difference between knowing that humans are unreliable, even able to lie to themselves, and claiming someone has committed perjury. Understanding that people can be unreliable narrators also isn't the same as saying they are lying all the time, either. What he believes his motivations to be certainly play a part, but it isn't the beginning or the end of forming an opinion.

 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, to me they're all heroes.

I would, yes.

True.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Has the prosecution independently verified through credible sources that he's indeed lying about his motivations?

There is a difference between knowing that humans are unreliable, even able to lie to themselves, and claiming someone has committed perjury. Understanding that people can be unreliable narrators also isn't the same as saying they are lying all the time, either. What he believes his motivations to be certainly play a part, but it isn't the beginning or the end of forming an opinion.

That's a really long way of saying no, there is no evidence that he is lying about his motivation.

 Jihadin wrote:
Manning I'm more pissed off about due to the fact he put others in danger...even though the charge of "aiding the enemy" didn't stick.

My apologies for not looking at the revealed data other than what made the headlines but since the charge of "aiding the enemy" had to be dropped i assume he did in fact not endanger others. Maybe you could elaborate why you think otherwise.

 Crablezworth wrote:
That's a really long way of saying no, there is no evidence that he is lying about his motivation.

There's quite a bit, actually.

Way back during his MOS training, he got in trouble for posting a YouTube video showing off the inside of a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. Even before he was deployed, a couple of his officers didn't want to take him because they felt he was a risk, to himself or others. He was writing to counselors from Iraq talking about gender reassignment surgery. He made the big download of most of the stuff he leaked right after the aforementioned incident with the table flipping, which was the result of him being disciplined for constantly showing up to work late. He punched a chick at another point, and at one point, somebody found him curled up inside a cupboard after carving "I WANT" into a chair. This was while he was giving his "female alter-ego" a digital presence, including YouTube and social media accounts.

Dude was fethed up and wanted out of the Army. He didn't like being around a bunch of not-gay guys with guns.

 Jihadin wrote:
Something not well known to those outside the military. Every month you're supposed get a performance counseling.

Fixed that for you


@Seaward, that definitely goes a long way to condemning a guy in court, regardless of the words that come out of his, and his defense attorney's mouths.... If he really wanted out the best way would honest to god, have been to gain about 50 pounds and just be fat.

I don't think the kid could even gain 50 lbs......no chest......scawny neck...couldn't even do "family care plan" way to get out...

As to why I think he put the troops in more danger well the video was a good propaganda tool to recruit more fighters.....shooters and planters....we had a lot more planters getting involve over past few years....with bigger IED's....also been mention in Manning tral that OBL had intell that Manning leaked to wikileak..

 Seaward wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
That's a really long way of saying no, there is no evidence that he is lying about his motivation.

There's quite a bit, actually.

Way back during his MOS training, he got in trouble for posting a YouTube video showing off the inside of a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. Even before he was deployed, a couple of his officers didn't want to take him because they felt he was a risk, to himself or others. He was writing to counselors from Iraq talking about gender reassignment surgery. He made the big download of most of the stuff he leaked right after the aforementioned incident with the table flipping, which was the result of him being disciplined for constantly showing up to work late. He punched a chick at another point, and at one point, somebody found him curled up inside a cupboard after carving "I WANT" into a chair. This was while he was giving his "female alter-ego" a digital presence, including YouTube and social media accounts.

Dude was fethed up and wanted out of the Army. He didn't like being around a bunch of not-gay guys with guns.

His work behavior is plenty to condemn him. Why did you need to include the transphobia?

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
That's a really long way of saying no, there is no evidence that he is lying about his motivation.

There's quite a bit, actually.

Way back during his MOS training, he got in trouble for posting a YouTube video showing off the inside of a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. Even before he was deployed, a couple of his officers didn't want to take him because they felt he was a risk, to himself or others. He was writing to counselors from Iraq talking about gender reassignment surgery. He made the big download of most of the stuff he leaked right after the aforementioned incident with the table flipping, which was the result of him being disciplined for constantly showing up to work late. He punched a chick at another point, and at one point, somebody found him curled up inside a cupboard after carving "I WANT" into a chair. This was while he was giving his "female alter-ego" a digital presence, including YouTube and social media accounts.

Dude was fethed up and wanted out of the Army. He didn't like being around a bunch of not-gay guys with guns.

His work behavior is plenty to condemn him. Why did you need to include the transphobia?

It goes to further show his want to be removed from the military. He spent time building that digital persona, and then emailed links of it to his Commander, trying to use that as a tool to get the axe.

And there is nothing transphobic in simply pointing out he had a cyber female alter-ego.

 djones520 wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
That's a really long way of saying no, there is no evidence that he is lying about his motivation.

There's quite a bit, actually.

Way back during his MOS training, he got in trouble for posting a YouTube video showing off the inside of a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. Even before he was deployed, a couple of his officers didn't want to take him because they felt he was a risk, to himself or others. He was writing to counselors from Iraq talking about gender reassignment surgery. He made the big download of most of the stuff he leaked right after the aforementioned incident with the table flipping, which was the result of him being disciplined for constantly showing up to work late. He punched a chick at another point, and at one point, somebody found him curled up inside a cupboard after carving "I WANT" into a chair. This was while he was giving his "female alter-ego" a digital presence, including YouTube and social media accounts.

Dude was fethed up and wanted out of the Army. He didn't like being around a bunch of not-gay guys with guns.

His work behavior is plenty to condemn him. Why did you need to include the transphobia?

It goes to further show his want to be removed from the military. He spent time building that digital persona, and then emailed links of it to his Commander, trying to use that as a tool to get the axe.

And there is nothing transphobic in simply pointing out he had a cyber female alter-ego.

There's something transphobic about pointing out he wanted GRS in a list of things that make him "fethed up". If you read his post without any mentions of that, the conclusion is still "wow, manning was out of his mind". He wrote to counselors that he wanted GRS. Is that a thing you aren't allowed to do?

Before DADT was repealed the occasional scumbag soldier and or Marine trying to get out of their contract by playi g the "gay card" happened with startling regularity. I saw it myself at least once a year.

Which is to say that having these sorts of suspicions, particularly when the behavior was so OTT, isn't automatically homophobic. Or transphobic, for that matter.

Actually, right wrong or indifferent, you can't legally be transgendered in the Army, so seeking out the surgery itself may not be illegal, but it does indicate intent to break a current rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Before DADT was repealed the occasional scumbag soldier and or Marine trying to get out of their contract by playi g the "gay card" happened with startling regularity. I saw it myself at least once a year.

Which is to say that having these sorts of suspicions, particularly when the behavior was so OTT, isn't automatically homophobic. Or transphobic, for that matter.

Back in the mid 90s I knew a guy who tried that to get out of a Korea assignment. When the commander told him 'nope, you going' he came back with polaroids which, in the words of the commander, were "graphic and convincing". He ended up not going to Korea and was a civilian pretty quickly.

 Monster Rain wrote:
Before DADT was repealed the occasional scumbag soldier and or Marine trying to get out of their contract by playi g the "gay card" happened with startling regularity. I saw it myself at least once a year.

Which is to say that having these sorts of suspicions, particularly when the behavior was so OTT, isn't automatically homophobic. Or transphobic, for that matter.

That is a good point, and I agree that there's a decent chance he was dropping those casually to get booted out, however I feel like seaward's post didn't articulate it that way, it was more like "here are the things wrong with manning" and had them in there, you know what I mean? Going back further into what he was replying to, you may be right though. It was probably a miscommunication.

But in the interest of not derailing, I'll drop it.

 Monster Rain wrote:
Before DADT was repealed the occasional scumbag soldier and or Marine trying to get out of their contract by playi g the "gay card" happened with startling regularity. I saw it myself at least once a year.

Which is to say that having these sorts of suspicions, particularly when the behavior was so OTT, isn't automatically homophobic. Or transphobic, for that matter.

Bingo, he had a long trend of activity trying to get himself removed, and when that didn't work, he tried that method. He started out by telling his roomie he was gay, that didn't go anywhere, so he upped the ante, and tried telling his commander he was a woman trapped in a mans body. Still went no where. He was an angry soldier in a deployed environment, those commanders see stuff like that all of the time.

The assertation that he made claims of being transgendered, and then later saying the guy was fethed in the head is not transphobic. He is fethed in the head, that is beyond doubt. You don't flip tables at work, assault co-workers, and email links of video's of your weekend play to your commander, if your not fethed in the head. He was laying the case out that Manning is not trustworthy, and that is also indisputable.