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.

 djones520 wrote:
Yes to both. None of this was a surprise for him. Being in Intel, he know what was going on over there long before he went.

That's what I thought but couldn't remember for sure. If he was struggling with his sexual identity, and disagreed with military action in Afghanistan then enlisting was probably not the best career path he could have chosen

DADT was a Bill Clinton era law. WAY before poor little Bradley enlisted. And he started basic for the second time in Jan of 2008, well after we had been at war.

Why did he start basic a second time? Because he almost got kicked out the first time. He was 'being bullied' and was sent to be discharged because he couldn't hang/couldn't get along, but instead got recycled (bet someone is kicking themselves now for that decision...). At that point instructors and the cadre had every incentive to graduate every one they could.

He should have been culled from the herd way before he had a chance to do damage.

 CptJake wrote:
Why did he start basic a second time? Because he almost got kicked out the first time. He was 'being bullied' and was sent to be discharged because he couldn't hang/couldn't get along, but instead got recycled (bet someone is kicking themselves now for that decision...). At that point instructors and the cadre had every incentive to graduate every one they could.

He should have been culled from the herd way before he had a chance to do damage.

I wonder if the people who recycled him, and then cleared him, have been asked what they were thinking yet?

I'm going to guess probably not, nor will they.

 CptJake wrote:
DADT was a Bill Clinton era law. WAY before poor little Bradley enlisted. And he started basic for the second time in Jan of 2008, well after we had been at war.

Why did he start basic a second time? Because he almost got kicked out the first time. He was 'being bullied' and was sent to be discharged because he couldn't hang/couldn't get along, but instead got recycled (bet someone is kicking themselves now for that decision...). At that point instructors and the cadre had every incentive to graduate every one they could.

He should have been culled from the herd way before he had a chance to do damage.

Too bad we don't have retroactive NCOERs in the system for this sort of circumstance

See, as much as I'd like to say that you can't just get out of the military whenever you want to, we wouldn't have had any of this happen if they had gone ahead and booted him out when he started acting crazy, even if it was on purpose.

 CptJake wrote:
DADT was a Bill Clinton era law. WAY before poor little Bradley enlisted. And he started basic for the second time in Jan of 2008, well after we had been at war.

Why did he start basic a second time? Because he almost got kicked out the first time. He was 'being bullied' and was sent to be discharged because he couldn't hang/couldn't get along, but instead got recycled (bet someone is kicking themselves now for that decision...). At that point instructors and the cadre had every incentive to graduate every one they could.

He should have been culled from the herd way before he had a chance to do damage.

What in your opinion were some or all of the major ramifications of manning's leaking to wikileaks?

The "major ramifications" are not relevant.
What is relevant is that his motives for leaking said material completely nullify any protection he would have as a "whistleblower".

 Kanluwen wrote:
The "major ramifications" are not relevant.
What is relevant is that his motives for leaking said material completely nullify any protection he would have as a "whistleblower".

They are relevant now.

Both sides get to argue what ramifications and damages there were, if any, and what his motivations were to see what mitigating effects it will have on his sentence, if any.

As far as I know the damages and motivations don't have any bearing on him being guilty or not, but they do have a bearing on what sentence he will receive.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The "major ramifications" are not relevant.

That's a powerful argument right there..

No its not. He is not being "charged" for what he released. He is being charged by Articles of everything he did before he release the intell. Why they didn't stick aiding and abetting the Enemy. Welcome to UCMJ.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
DADT was a Bill Clinton era law. WAY before poor little Bradley enlisted. And he started basic for the second time in Jan of 2008, well after we had been at war.

Why did he start basic a second time? Because he almost got kicked out the first time. He was 'being bullied' and was sent to be discharged because he couldn't hang/couldn't get along, but instead got recycled (bet someone is kicking themselves now for that decision...). At that point instructors and the cadre had every incentive to graduate every one they could.

He should have been culled from the herd way before he had a chance to do damage.

What in your opinion were some or all of the major ramifications of manning's leaking to wikileaks?

Just some:

Allied intel services and diplomatic entities a lot less likely to share their take, let alone any sources with us because they don't trust us to secure their info/sources. That is a big one.

Individuals we try to recruit as sources in places like Yemen and Afghanistan (and many others) will be more reluctant to work with us, again fearing their identities get leaked and they or their families get capped.

Some specific individuals did get identities leaked. Even if they are/were not harmed, they are no longer sources.

I go into a lot more by addressing some specific info leaked, but it really wouldn't add anything of value to the topic.

Can someone explain this case to me, it seems like a guy who releashed info on the military doing bad things?
But im seeing alot of anger here about it.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Can someone explain this case to me, it seems like a guy who releashed info on the military doing bad things?
But im seeing alot of anger here about it.

He stole thousands of classified documents (most not even military but instead Department of State) and passed them to an organization he knew would post them on the web. You would have a very hard case to show what he stole was relevant to 'the military doing bad things', though some items like the Apache gun video were manipulated to appear so.

Lots of people think he did the right thing, many (including most military folks) don't think so. Highly polarizing case.

That pretty much sums it up.

And most of the people who think he "did the right thing" refuse to see that he did not actually "do the right thing" for the "right reasons"(which is more or less what a "whistleblower" does), but rather because he was trying to get out of what he signed up for and frustrated with the fact that he was unable to do so.

In any other job doing something like what Manning did would get you blackballed almost instantly and have your employers pressing charges. But because Manning has WikiLeaks and the people who honestly believed that "Collateral Murder" was in fact depicting "murder" behind him, it has become a highly polarizing case.

He did the ultimate sin in the military. He put us in more danger then needed to be. He did the Royal Major Blue Falcon on us. You didn't think that Apache video didn't get a few more "fighters", some more "Financers", and some more converts. to the cause?

I'm sorry but I'm still not understanding how wanting out of the military is mutually exclusive with taking issue with america's foreign policy and what was actually occuring over there. How can it not be both? I'm still not seeing that. I can dislike indian food for it not smelling good and it being spicy, the existance of a second reason for disliking it shouldn't call the first reason into question.

What apache video? And how did he put the military in danger.
Im not contradicting what you siad, im just curious

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

From the grainy video how are they able to tell that is a camera?

 Crablezworth wrote:
I'm sorry but I'm still not understanding how wanting out of the military is mutually exclusive with taking issue with america's foreign policy and what was actually occuring over there. How can it not be both? I'm still not seeing that. I can dislike indian food for it not smelling good and it being spicy, the existance of a second reason for disliking it shouldn't call the first reason into question.

Because your willfully ignoring all of the facts that have been presented.

A clear trend of escalating tactics to get himself removed from the military has been established, when they all failed, he went to the one fool proof tactic. You want to get snookered in by his little statement, go ahead. Can we stop discussing it now?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
From the grainy video how are they able to tell that is a camera?

Because two of the individuals killed were reuters journalists, it's important to read the info before the video, it gives important context.

Going stright off the video all we have is the videos word that they where journalists.

 djones520 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
I'm sorry but I'm still not understanding how wanting out of the military is mutually exclusive with taking issue with america's foreign policy and what was actually occuring over there. How can it not be both? I'm still not seeing that. I can dislike indian food for it not smelling good and it being spicy, the existance of a second reason for disliking it shouldn't call the first reason into question.

Because your willfully ignoring all of the facts that have been presented.

A clear trend of escalating tactics to get himself removed from the military has been established, when they all failed, he went to the one fool proof tactic. You want to get snookered in by his little statement, go ahead. Can we stop discussing it now?

What am I ignoring? One can be motivated by multiple things, another nail in the coffin doesn't pull the first one out. He didn't like being in the military and after seeing what he saw he really didn't like being in the military and because of what he saw felt compelled to blow the whistle and let the american public and the world see for itself.

 Crablezworth wrote:
I'm sorry but I'm still not understanding how wanting out of the military is mutually exclusive with taking issue with america's foreign policy and what was actually occuring over there. How can it not be both? I'm still not seeing that. I can dislike indian food for it not smelling good and it being spicy, the existance of a second reason for disliking it shouldn't call the first reason into question.

If you're not understanding, it is because you simply do not want to.

To pretend as though the "Collateral Murder" video which put Manning on the map was anything but WikiLeaks releasing footage cut to completely remove context and be as accusatory as possible is ridiculous. Even just simply looking at the Wikipedia article on it shows that the Apache crew were entirely justified in engaging like they did.

Its FLIR and the drivers of the Frag 5's were under NVG's. As for the camera it looks like a either a map-pack surface to air or a anti tank weapon.

 Kanluwen wrote:
it is because you simply do not want to.

I'm not understanding how wanting out of the military prior to being exposed to the information he leaked detracts credibility from manning's claim of intent on releasing said information. How does having multiple reasons for something call either reason into question?

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
it is because you simply do not want to.

I'm not understanding how wanting out of the military prior to being exposed to the information he leaked detracts credibility from manning's claim of intent on releasing said information. How does having multiple reasons for something call either reason into question?

Then you are simply refusing to actually look at the case.

And that's how not to support an argument.

Here, I'll support my argument that he did have a reason for leaking beyond getting himself out of the military:

"I felt that we were risking so much for people that seemed unwilling to cooperate with us, leading to frustration and anger on both sides. I began to become depressed with the situation that we found ourselves increasingly mired in year after year. The SigActs documented this in great detail and provide a context of what we were seeing on the ground.

In attempting to conduct counter-terrorism or CT and counter-insurgency COIN operations we became obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists… ignoring the second and third order effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions.

I believed that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the [Iraq and Afghan War Logs] this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as well as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan."

- Bradly Manning


Now here's the part where you try and support the assertion that all of that has no part to play in his motivation for leaking. Good luck.