Bradley Manning: Hero Or Traitor?

There was no two ways about how he was going to leak out the information. You think if he followed the chain of command in his military, we would have seen the atrocities hidden from us all along? With a leak of this magnitude, the only way to expose all the atrocities was for him to work with an expert hacker

 

It's not whether or not the info would be detrimental to us...

IT'S THE FACT THAT HE BROKE THE LAW!!!

How hard is this!?!?

 

And you know for a fact that it would've just been covered up, huh?

Also, what exactly were these atrocities, and why has no one been charged with anything related to them???

 

Nothing that was printed from the wikileaks turned out to be a surprise. Almost everything had been reported somewhere else by another agency or media. I have no problem with legitimate individuals reporting misbehavior in government or business, even if they break the law, as long as a law is being upheld in the other side. Manning was clearly just looking for attention and even the Wash Post redacted a great deal of sensitive material. My term paper was on the Pentagon papers and the Gulf Of Tonkin resolution and Daniel Ellsberg was a hero of mine. He saw a genuine miscarriage of justice and released printed papers pertinent to the subject. Quite a difference in deed and motive.

 

Yet when people break the laws in other countries and face a harsh punishment, America is always the first to protest.

So the law is to be followed when you agree with the law, but when the law is wrong, its okay to break it?

 

Really People? wrote: "Manning didn't utilize [the chain of command] properly, and, will have his ass nailed to the wall for it... If Manning had this moral obligation, he would have gone about reporting the information through the proper channels with disregard for any possible negative impact on his career, instead of releasing the info in the way that would garner the most attention..."

This fallacy was exposed by Leo, though I believe he was addressing someone else. The notion that Bradley Manning was going to take this material to his commanding officer and tell him or his superior something they didn't already know is preposterous. Even more unlikely is that they would've acted. I further believe he had hoped to remain anonymous. You say if Manning had acted responsibly, the military would've investigated. Tell us now, have they? Another fallacy is that the circumstances don't matter, Manning committed treason. The criminality and the illegitimacy of the actual objectives that characterize these occupations need to be exposed. Although I would say that Manning and Assange failed in accomplishing that. The key factor that has been overlooked is that this wasn't the result of a security breach, this occurred due to a security vacuum! They are NOT the same thing. One is the result of a highly sophisticated encryption crack, the other the result of no security protecting the database at all. This source corroborates that point:

So, "elementary procedures" that are routinely found everywhere else. How is it these cables were classified yet, left completely unsecure at the same time? Security was dependent on what exactly, an honor system? What a joke! Every $h!+-fuq in Manning's unit was uploading files onto those computers, a lot of which from storage devices that could've been carrying malicious files of every kind. That right there means the Defense Dept had no concern for the sensitivity of the cables & reports stored on that network! The fact of the matter is that half of the material wasn't even classified. Even the small fraction of files that were classified as "secret" is still a low-level classification. All the communiqué that could've exposed deep corruption had already been vetted. The only material Bradley Manning stole was what the Pentagon & State had dumped in their collective cyber trashcan. That Defense would take no measure whatsoever to protect these documents, but now come down so hard on Bradley Manning for attempting only to make this material public just doesn't make any sense at all. Further, Amy Goodman recently reported that the U.S. military has acknowledged that not one single person has been harmed due to the leaks.

So the premise here, whether Manning is a hero or a traitor ignores all the facts suggesting that he took the bait and fell into a trap set by the military. This is interesting. There was a particular batch of documents that pertained to the surveillance of the military and its contractors:

Every time I read this sort of stuff it amazes me how technologically advanced the superpower truly is! The Pentagon's capability is no less than absolute. That they possess the ability to track & record the physical movement of everyone in front of my webcam and everything that is said in the privacy of my own living room, w/o my knowledge is amazing, if not daunting.

 

The only "metal" that Manning should get should be at Mach 2 to the back of his skull.

 

So does a motivated preteen. It isn't very hard to load tracking and recording software into someone's computer or phone. There are even a lot of pre-made apps available out there to use.

 

Spoken like a true stooge of the US federal government.

 

Oh yeah, like I'm a big supporter of the U.S. federal govt.

 

hiimjered wrote: "So does a motivated preteen. It isn't very hard to load tracking and recording software into someone's computer or phone. There are even a lot of pre-made apps available out there to use."

Free tracking software that anyone can download off of watchyourwifeblowme.com isn't exactly of the same caliber, okay genius? You need physical access or possession of the device to download those programs. Whereas, the Pentagon can be sitting next to you after you've opened your browser... then once they're in, they probably don't even need you to do that!

Dayton3 wrote: "The only "metal" that Manning should get should be at Mach 2 to the back of his skull."

I'm afraid Kman is right. For you to want Manning's head lopped off, you're in league with a bunch of ignorant, circle-jerkin' whack-jobs! There's absolutely no correlation between the ramifications of Manning's actions and the penalty clamored for. Nutjobs, one & all.

 

Don't recall saying any of that.

Fail.

 

Manning's days as a QB are going to slow down. Both of them. They are not going to be breaking any more records for a while. With QBs like Drew Breeze, Ruthlessburger and Tom brady, the Mannings will need to step up their game. But with age comes physical challanges.

FYI: the youtub has great war video for those interested in seeing the US Army infantry. That is the job Mannings did not or do not do in the Army. But it's what they judge.

 

Maybe........but we really get uptight if it causes or has potential harm for America.

It's an American thing...............

 

American =Capitialist America ,working Class America another thing altogether,50% Wage cuts for them.

 

Has that been to court yet?

Did I miss something like a Trial ,and what happened to that great democratic principle of innocent until PROVEN Guilty?

Oh sorry you must be a American as democracy is a foriegn concept to you,excuse me.

 

He's confessed and there is evidence, he is guilty pending sentence of the military court. Plus, in the military you're not always assumed innocent until proven guilty. When he enlisted he also signed away some of his Constitutional rights.

Military justice and law is something foreign to you as well.

 

Yeah, I must be American, hence, the flag on my profile...

There must be nothing that can escape you...

As for the rest of your post, I'll refer you to KSig's post above, as he answered it sufficiently...

 

What is your source on this?

Here is what I know about the court matters in this case:

http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2011/11/article-32-hearing.html

 

Obviously he's a traitor. That's why he was arrested and confined. Sadly, he probably won't be executed.

Perhaps you liberals can start a defense fund for him, if you haven't already. I know he didn't kill a cop, but still, wouldn't you say a traitor is also worthy of your love and support?

 

KSig's explanation was correct...

Actually being in the military helps you understand this explanation a lot better...

 

Then when why don't one of you provide a link so we can all understand it?

 

Just to be fair, I'll look around, but, I don't think I'll find any one specific link that gives you this explanation you're looking for...

There are alot of examples of Constitutional rights being limited in the military, though...

Free speech being a prime example of just that...

In the military, you just aren't allowed to say whatever you want, whenever you want, like you can in the private sector...

Just how it is...

 

Here's something, but, it doesn't really go into a whole lot of detail...

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_milj.html

If I spot anything else, I'll post it...

 

Thanks.....