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.

**d-usa**

High School history is so wrong that it is probably better if they don't cover many things.

**Ensis Ferrae**

d-usa wrote:
High School history is so wrong that it is probably better if they don't cover many things.

Agreed. When I was in school, through independent reading, I discovered that various sections of my AP European History book were dead wrong. Not so much dates, but the manner or ways in which various events occurred, or what have you.

**Squigsquasher**

And once again 'Murica shows how it values its reputation over human lives.

Disgusting. I hope this guy gets the shortest stay he can. We need more people willing to expose war crimes.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Squigsquasher wrote:

Disgusting. I hope this guy gets the shortest stay he can. We need more people willing to expose war crimes.

What war crimes were those? Again, we've been over the one video he got... it was severely cut to show US military personnel in the worst possible light.

**Ratius**

We need more people willing to expose war crimes.

What war crimes were those?

A general US war crime comment methinks SS was making, not related to Manning.

Not going to troll that are you?

**Dreadclaw69**

Squigsquasher wrote:
And once again 'Murica shows how it values its reputation over human lives.

Disgusting. I hope this guy gets the shortest stay he can. We need more people willing to expose war crimes.

War crimes? I'm pretty sure this was covered earlier in the thread by many others, but for the avoidance of doubt which ones did Pvt. Manning uncover exactly?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
What war crimes were those? Again, we've been over the one video he got... it was severely cut to show US military personnel in the worst possible light.

I thought that was a delicious irony - wikileaks, which values openness and exposing the truth, selectively edited a video to show the US military in the worst possible light

**d-usa**

The number if war crimes uncovered are the same as the number of people that were hurt because of the leaks.

But both sides keep on pretending they have a point.

**KalashnikovMarine**

And Manning should still go to prison for that because of the multiple laws and rules he violated. Fancy that.

**Ahtman**

Ratius wrote:
A general US war crime comment methinks SS was making, not related to Manning.

I don't think that was what SS was saying at all, and was pretty specific that he was referring to Manning, who didn't actually expose war crimes at all. That tape has been gone over to death, and even in the worst circumstances it was a bunch of people in the wrong place at the wrong time i.e. running around near an ongoing battle at night. This isn't to say the US never makes mistakes, I mean, we got into the stupid war in the first place, but it isn't like we are dumping sarin gas on people either, and mistakes are not the same thing as war crimes. Our drone strike policy is more controversial and problematic, with the level of collateral damage and extremely broad definition of what counts as an eligible target, and Manning isn't tied to that at all.

**d-usa**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
And Manning should still go to prison for that because of the multiple laws and rules he violated. Fancy that.

That's fine, if people want him to go to prison for being a rule breaker.

But people who claim people go hurt or killed because of him are talking as much nonsense as the people who are complaining about war crimes.

He violated his oath and broke the rules. And the leaks exposed some potentially questionable military actions but were primarily a PR nightmare for the state department and our foreign relations.

It's an international and military version of the movie "Mean Girls" and Manning leaked the Burn Book.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Squigsquasher wrote:

Disgusting. I hope this guy gets the shortest stay he can. We need more people willing to expose war crimes.

What war crimes were those? Again, we've been over the one video he got... it was severely cut to show US military personnel in the worst possible light.

Technically, the actual invasion of Iraq in itself was a war crime, as it was the invasion of another sovereign nation without legal backing, as if war is fine as long as it's legal! You know what I mean!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
And Manning should still go to prison for that because of the multiple laws and rules he violated. Fancy that.

That's fine, if people want him to go to prison for being a rule breaker.

But people who claim people go hurt or killed because of him are talking as much nonsense as the people who are complaining about war crimes.

He violated his oath and broke the rules. And the leaks exposed some potentially questionable military actions but were primarily a PR nightmare for the state department and our foreign relations.

It's an international and military version of the movie "Mean Girls" and Manning leaked the Burn Book.

Exactly. I said it earlier that Manning's sentence seems to be a reflection of the desire of the embarrassed to gain revenge.

I will keep banging this drum, but a 5-10 year sentence would on reflection, be a fair sentence, as I understand the other side's argument that he broke laws/codes etc.

**Seaward**

I wasn't aware we had so many experts on extremist recruiting trends on Dakka.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I will keep banging this drum, but a 5-10 year sentence would on reflection, be a fair sentence, as I understand the other side's argument that he broke laws/codes etc.

While that may be true from a "social justice" point of view, the fact remains that he violated the UCMJ, and is "merely" being punished as such. His sentencing is being conducted within the bounds of Army Regulations, DoD regs, and the structure set forth in the UCMJ, this isn't a civilian court afterall.

**CptJake**

Even if it was a civilian court (in this case it would have been Federal) there are still sentencing guidelines a judge must use, and espionage convictions are not a 5 year sentence.

And for the folks who truly believe no damage was done, it would really behoove you to gain a better understanding of what was released and the real implications on collection efforts and source ops. Looking at the flags by your names I suspect many of your countries directly benefit fro our collection efforts.

**Ahtman**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Technically, the actual invasion of Iraq in itself was a war crime, as it was the invasion of another sovereign nation without legal backing

I'm no fan of the war, but this is probably the most ridiculous reason to be against it. The US is a sovereign nation as well and doesn't need to get the blessing of some extra national entity to be allowed to do what it believes is in it's interest. It may have been stupid, but it was legal within the laws of the US. It wasn't as if the military went off to war after Congress and the President told them not to.

**d-usa**

Seaward wrote:
I wasn't aware we had so many experts on extremist recruiting trends on Dakka.

I'm not an expert, I'm just repeating what the military experts that testifies in the trial said. And what experts that testified before congress after the leaks were saying.

**Orlanth**

Late entry to this issue, here are my thoughs on Manning.

Manning is a traitor not a whistleblower. Were he a jornalist who uncovered the 'horrible truth' he could stand on his civil rights to publish and expose the information he found. However this is not the case, he was a serving soldier and thus had the moral obligation to do his job obey orders and keep secrets.

The only legal exception to the above is if he is personally ordered to commit acts that are in violation of the Hague or Geneva Conventions, then as a soldier he is obliged under international law to disobey he orders of his superiors, stating why. Now in reality it might not work quite like that, but thats how it stands in international law. Manning wasn't party to a war crime to which he was able to stand up and vocalise non participation in, he was a record keeper and thus should have kept his mouth shut.

The verdict was justified. Nationality plays no part in this opinion, I would have said the same if he had come from any other nation.

Assange on the other hand is committing no crime by publishing the leaked information, for a start he is not a US citizen and has no obligation to keep US secrets. Manning had.

**Crablezworth**

Orlanth wrote:
Assange on the other hand is committing no crime by publishing the leaked information, for a start he is not a US citizen and has no obligation to keep US secrets. Manning had.

I can definitely agree with you there when it comes to wikileaks.

Power does what it wants (to quote the late great George Carlin) and is often brazenly hypocritical in an absurd and kafkaesque way. It's nice to occasionally see an individual comment on the emperor's new clothes without ending up in front of a firing squad or behind bars.

**Seaward**

d-usa wrote:
Seaward wrote:
I wasn't aware we had so many experts on extremist recruiting trends on Dakka.

I'm not an expert, I'm just repeating what the military experts that testifies in the trial said. And what experts that testified before congress after the leaks were saying.

Some of them. The prosecution had witnesses, too.

**d-usa**

Seaward wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Seaward wrote:
I wasn't aware we had so many experts on extremist recruiting trends on Dakka.

I'm not an expert, I'm just repeating what the military experts that testifies in the trial said. And what experts that testified before congress after the leaks were saying.

Some of them. The prosecution had witnesses, too.

You guys haven't been able to produce a single name that has been linked as a victim to the leaks, despite numerous requests to do so.

The prosecution witness initialy stated that one person was killed because of the leak, but on cross he stated that the person was not named in the leaks.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/bradley-manning-sentencing-hearing-pentagon

The US counter-intelligence official who led the Pentagon's review into the fallout from the WikiLeaks disclosures of state secrets told the Bradley Manning sentencing hearing on Wednesday that no instances were ever found of any individual killed by enemy forces as a result of having been named in the releases.

Brigadier general Robert Carr, a senior counter-intelligence officer who headed the Information Review Task Force that investigated the impact of WikiLeaks disclosures on behalf of the Defense Department, told a court at Fort Meade, Maryland, that they had uncovered no specific examples of anyone who had lost his or her life in reprisals that followed the publication of the disclosures on the internet. "I don't have a specific example," he said.

Carr initially toldl the judge presiding over the case, Colonel Denise Lind, that there had been an individual killed in Afghanistan as a result of the publication by WikiLeaks of the Afghan war logs that recorded military activities on the ground. "As a result of the Afghan logs I know of one individual killed – an Afghan national who had a relationship with the US government and the Taliban came out and said publicly that they had killed him as a result of him being associated with information in these logs," Carr said.

But under defence cross-examination Carr conceded that the victim's name had not be included in the war logs made public by WikiLeaks. Asked by Lind whether the individual who was killed was tied to the disclosures, Carr replied: "The Taliban killed him and tied him to the disclosures. We went back and looked for the name in the disclosures. The name of the individual killed was not in the disclosures."

**Seaward**

d-usa wrote:

You guys haven't been able to produce a single name that has been linked as a victim to the leaks, despite numerous requests to do so.

Who's "you guys?" Last I checked, I wasn't working for the prosecution.

I also believe it's fully impossible to link any one death to Manning's leaks, so that's a rather ridiculous standard. What we should be looking at is whether or not anything he released aided extremist recruiting.

**dogma**

Orlanth wrote:

Manning is a traitor not a whistleblower. Were he a jornalist who uncovered the 'horrible truth' he could stand on his civil rights to publish and expose the information he found. However this is not the case, he was a serving soldier and thus had the moral obligation to do his job obey orders and keep secrets.

When Manning is said to be whistleblower it is a reference to this piece of legislation.

**pities2004**

Sentenced to 35 years in federal prison.

**Ouze**

He got off light, comparatively - certainly compared to what they were asking for. He'll be out in 11 if he behaves.

**CptJake**

Ouze wrote:
He got off light, comparatively - certainly compared to what they were asking for. He'll be out in 11 if he behaves.

He is eligible for parole in 8 due to credit for time served.

**Monster Rain**

I think the sentence is fair enough.

His life is basically ruined as it is from all this nonsense. Eight years in federal prison isn't a picnic.

**djones520**

Monster Rain wrote:
I think the sentence is fair enough.

His life is basically ruined as it is from all this nonsense. Eight years in federal prison isn't a picnic.

He'll get out in 8 years, get a free sex change from some uber-liberal donations, and then start a new life with no one knowing who he/she is.

**Monster Rain**

No way, man. You think it won't be big news if something like that happens?

"Wikileaks Informant in Sex Change Shocker!" I can see it now.

**djones520**

Monster Rain wrote:
No way, man. You think it won't be big news if something like that happens?

"Wikileaks Informant in Sex Change Shocker!" I can see it now.

He'll get a 15 second blurb on HLN when he's released, that'll be about it. In 8 years if you say Bradley Manning in a crowded room, you might get one or two people who know what your talking about.

**Tyran**

Monster Rain wrote:
I think the sentence is fair enough.

His life is basically ruined as it is from all this nonsense. Eight years in federal prison isn't a picnic.

Travels to Venezuela, now he is a celebrity

.