Remember the Iraq Wikileaks whistle blower from the Army?

He's finally being charged

http://www.alternet.org/rights/150114/u.s._military_charges_wikileaks_whistleblower_bradley_manning_with_%E2%80%99aiding_the_enemy%E2%80%99/?page=entire


"Aiding the enemy"


...

Really??? FFS, gimme a break

Guilty until proven innocent. Hoorah.

Hoorah is Marines...

Army is just HOOAH

or HUA

My ignorance, it shows.

Skreshavik wrote:

My ignorance, it shows.

Heres a towel.

And wow.... if he gets life in prison or death.. wow.

Yah... BS.

Kick him out dishonorably.... he's already served enough time, shiz, it was all solitary confinement.

Of course some "big wigs" were all embarrassed and upset so of course they gotta make a big show of it.... can't have people shedding a bad light on our bad shiz

Theyre only making themselves look bad with this sugar, keeping a US soldier locked like a war criminal for the dumbest sugar ever.

They already said they weren't looking for death penalty. Give them a break. The guy did commit treason... When you're in the military you should know better than to release any data to some website.

They really havent proved it yet though.

SpaceFox wrote:

Heres a towel.

Danke.

SpaceFox wrote:

They really havent proved it yet though.

That's why he's only been charged and not sentenced to life in prison yet.

Fido has a point, the man committed treason, that's pretty damn serious. You can't just give out a shedload of data and then not expect reprisal.

Touche, but life in prison seems over the top.

No it doesn't. If these weren't times of global peace (like, say, if this was before 1992) it would be expected by everyone that this guy gets put to death.

Having someone in your military organization compromising information to some random 3rd party source whose entire goal is to release as much sensitive information as possible... is definitely grounds for some heavy punishment in my book.

The only mitigating factor here is that he probably did it for ideology so certain like-minded people can call him noble. If he was paid for it he'd be a pure scumbag.

Of course doing it for money would make him a douchebag... that's irrelevant.

He knew shady shiz was going on, knew it needed to get out there but didn't know how, so dumped a shiz ton of files into wikileaks lap.

Motive is 100% relevant here... Like disobeying an unlawful order, you have the right, the DUTY, to expose your leaders BS... period

Motive's not relevant at all. He released classified information. You work for the government, with clearance, and you're expected to keep a secret or two.

If it's secret, it's secret for a reason. If everyone working in intelligence released the classified information they were working with, or had access to, on whatever moral ground made them feel justified, would it really be a better world?

actually...... yes

If people followed morals instead of orders, this world would be MUCH better off

Everyone's morals are different. Shown here in this thread. I think if he's guilty he should be punished. That's my feeling of justice. You think he did a good thing. You want people to follow YOUR morals, not their morals. Some people don't have any morals at all. How do American Psychos and their ilk function in a world where everyone lives by morals and not orders?

Laws are there to keep people's fluctuating morals from interfering. It's not about morals, it's about the law. The law is changed as necessary and I don't get the impression that just because some people think it's right to tell the secrets of a world superpower, they're gonna scrap the laws forbidding that.

Thats true.

Fido 1
Ronin 0

so exposing dirty secrets is a bad thing?

just stfu

Fido wrote:

Everyone's morals are different. Shown here in this thread. I think if he's guilty he should be punished. That's my feeling of justice. You think he did a good thing. You want people to follow YOUR morals, not their morals. Some people don't have any morals at all. How do American Psychos and their ilk function in a world where everyone lives by morals and not orders?

Laws are there to keep people's fluctuating morals from interfering. It's not about morals, it's about the law. The law is changed as necessary and I don't get the impression that just because some people think it's right to tell the secrets of a world superpower, they're gonna scrap the laws forbidding that.

Ah, it's good to have biblical morals based off of biblical laws. Everything is black and white, no wishy-washy compliance. Why, I even believe there's a biblical passage to expose the government's lies, such as Mark 6:18 "For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife."

Even if it's delusional that this country, or even world for that matter will become better by even a drop, at the very least I'm not standing idly by watching it burn.

Exposing dirty secrets is irrelevant here. He released classified information that he had access to. That's not the same as exposing dirty secrets, that's a breach of trust, which basically is not acceptable in any serious organization with secrets. And that includes governments. So, sorry, but if he's guilty of the crime he committed, let him be punished.

I don't care if the secrets he released led to people finding out the US was committing genocide somewhere. Seriously, the type and amount of secrets he released has nothing to do with it: His actions violated several laws which makes him a criminal regardless of the moral reasons.

I think exposing dirty secrets is 100% relevant here. If a body of power can incarcerate anybody regardless of the initial crime they've done themselves, then how can they be kept in check?

That guy over there talking about how we burned down a children's hospital because we merely suspected the hospital of having volatile materials to create bombs and killed all those children? Arrest that motherfucker and get out the firing squad, he's releasing classified information on the top-secret file "Murder random civilians."

Skreshavik wrote:

I think exposing dirty secrets is 100% relevant here. If a body of power can incarcerate anybody regardless of the initial crime they've done themselves, then how can they be kept in check?

That guy over there talking about how we burned down a children's hospital because we merely suspected the hospital of having volatile materials to create bombs and killed all those children? Arrest that motherfucker and get out the firing squad, he's releasing classified information on the top-secret file "Murder random civilians."

Er, they can be kept in check by the goddamn democratic system. Duh. Also there are plenty of judges with enough authority to demand insight and let's not forget the Freedom of Information act. And do you think this is the first time shady things have gone on during wartime? I think overall the US has cleaned up its act considerably since Vietnam.

Your example is random, doesn't make sense, doesn't apply.

obviously that system isn't working since they've corrupted it with money, power and influence....

ergo, we must step outside THEIR system in order to bring them to heel.