It’s natural to have sympathy for Chelsea Manning as a young person

[pnwmom]

caught in a nightmarish situation, with her own personal needs completely at odds with the environment she found herself in.

And she thought she was performing a public service by leaking the helicopter video. That one act put her in the category of “whistle-blower.”

And Assange probably took advantage of her situation by persuading her, over the course of online conversations over an extended period of time, that she would perform an even greater public service by leaking everything she could get her hands on.

However, leaking the 250,000 diplomatic cables – unread, unredacted, with no way to know what the consequences would be -- was wrong. WHATEVER THEY CONTAINED. It was not whistle-blowing. It was just unconsidered, indiscriminate leaking, with possibly dire consequences; there was no way for Manning to know. And the only conclusion is that she’d been persuaded not to care.

Her time in prison may end up to be as few as 8 more years, after accounting for time served and good behavior. I commend the sentencing judge for a thoughtful decision that recognized both the seriousness of Manning’s actions and the extenuating circumstance of her mental and emotional turmoil.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bradley-manning-courtmartial-hears-evidence-of-online-chats-with-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-8656118.html

On the stand, Mr Johnson said he found a trail of chats between Manning and an account that prosecutors believe was used by Mr Assange. Those chats were about government business, he said, adding: “Specifically, they were mentioning Iceland, Iraq, Afghanistan and Gitmo (Guantanamo Bay.)”.They discussed WikiLeaks too.

The prosecution this week has asserted that the torrent of secret material sent by Manning to WikiLeaks included such things as code names and sensitive information on US military tactics and strategy. It also included at least one enemy target, the court was told.

In a statement that was read to the court, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Martin Nehring, a classification expert, said his review of Afghanistan and Iraq battlefield reports leaked by Manning revealed techniques for dealing with improvised explosives, the name of an enemy target, the names of criminal suspects as well as troop movements.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-says-manning-leak-of-classified-docs-hurt-human-rights-work/article13582889/

Mr. Kozak says the cables identified people who had worked with the United States, putting them at risk of death, violence or incarceration. He says the department helped some of those people relocate.

Mr. Kozak says the greatest damage is that some foreign human rights workers are now reluctant to talk to the department because they fear their conversations will be revealed.

[Cleita]

1. So far there has been no evidence that anyone has been greatly

harmed by the information released by Manning whereas Dick Cheney's revelation of Valerie Plame allegedly did cause grave harm to some assets. Why has Cheney not been brought to trial and sentenced to 35 years in prison? Until he is, Manning should go free.

[HardTimes99]

3. Manning's sentence is more than 3 times as long as the most severe sentence

handed down to the convicted torturers of Abu Ghraib, speaking of actually 'greatly harming' victims.

I guess the UCMJ is a bit short of the 'J' (and also the 'U,' come to think of it).

[Cleita]

33. Yes, even much more than the soldiers who committed the

Abu Ghraib tortures and then made videos of it.

[Bluenorthwest]

4. Excellent points and questions, selective justice being no justice at all.

And we all know the motives for exposing Plame were of the most venal and personal sort.

[Cleita]

34. Exactly! eom

[leftstreet]

6. +1

[Johonny]

12. So unless every you think is a criminal is brought to trial we should release everyone from prison

I seems like an odd choice...

While Manning's prison length is long for a civil court it isn't out of line for a military court as many people have pointed out. Hopefully Manning won't serve the full length of the sentence (particularly because most of the information would be declassified before the prison sentence ended). Military justice kind of sucks.

[Cleita]

13. No, I think that equal justice should apply to all.

So everyone guilty of the same crime should be given equal justice punishment for the crime. Until then, we can't keep behaving like a banana republic with two different justice systems depending on your privilege in life or lack do it.

[pnwmom]

14. Cheney obviously did it with Bush's tacit approval. And Bush could declassify anything

he wanted.

The fact that Cheney wasn't held accountable doesn't give a free pass to every other leaker into eternity.

[Cleita]

20. If justice were equally served, no it doesn't but its not equally served.

What Manning did is so minimal to what the Bush administration did and who are walking around as free as birds millionaires, Chelsea Manning deserves a pardon. She killed nobody. They killed thousands if not millions.

[LittleBlue]

28. It was the biggest myth of the entire Manning leak

That people were put in grave danger.

There is to this day not a shred of evidence that anyone was put in danger. The only thing we have are baseless statements from the government or media, and yet they cannot point to one verifiable instance of someone being hurt or dying.

Tells you all you need to know about these lying government/media types.

[Cleita]

32. So true.

What worries them is that they were exposed and Assange and Wikileaks have the evidence. If they were at least honest about that aspect, I would have a little more respect for their concern.

[4Q2u2]

2. I hope you are ready for a fight

This does not fit the narative that is demanded around here. I am sure by then end of the thread you will some kind of Phobe.

[Hissyspit]

8. The whole OP is a "narrative."

For instance, there's no proof of this:

"And Assange probably took advantage of her situation by persuading her, over the course of online conversations over an extended period of time, that she would perform an even greater public service by leaking everything she could get her hands on."

But is useful for the story OP wishes to tell.

That the leak of only the helicopter incident is what made Manning a whistleblower is patently false.

OP also leaves out other aspects of the story, much as Manning was forced to do during the trial.

"Bradley Manning Trial Witness Says Zero Deaths Linked To Names In Afghan War Diary Release"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/31/bradley-manning-afghan-war-diary_n_3684828.html

From Wikipedia:

On 11 August 2010, a spokesman for the Pentagon told the Washington Post that "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents",[55] although the spokesman asserted "there is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field." On 17 August, the Associated Press reported that "so far there is no evidence that any Afghans named in the leaked documents as defectors or informants from the Taliban insurgency have been harmed in retaliation."[56]

In October, the Pentagon concluded that the leak "did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods", and that furthermore "there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak."[57]

Whose "reckless" behavior?

In one incident, a U.S. patrol machine-gunned a bus, wounding or killing 15 of its passengers.[33]

On 4 March 2007, in the Shinwar shooting, U.S. Marines opened fire on civilians after witnessing a suicide bombing and supposedly coming under small arms fire. The Guardian reported their actions: "The marines made a frenzied escape [from the scene of the bombing], opening fire with automatic weapons as they tore down a six-mile stretch of highway, hitting almost anyone in their way – teenage girls in the fields, motorists in their cars, old men as they walked along the road. Nineteen unarmed civilians were killed and 50 wounded." The military report of the incident (written by the same soldiers involved in it) later failed to make any reference to the deaths and injuries and none of the soldiers involved were charged or disciplined.[34]

On 21 March 2007, CIA paramilitaries fired on a civilian man who was running from them. The man, Shum Khan, was deaf and mute and did not hear their warnings.[32][35]

In 2007, documents detail how US special forces dropped six 2,000 lb bombs on a compound where they believed a “high-value individual” was hiding, after “ensuring there were no innocent Afghans in the surrounding area”. A senior U.S. commander reported that 150 Taliban had been killed. Locals, however, reported that up to 300 civilians had died.[36]

On 16 August 2007, Polish troops mortared the village of Nangar Khel, killing five people – including a pregnant woman and her baby – in what The Guardian describes as an apparent revenge attack shortly after experiencing an IED explosion.[32][37]

[4Q2u2]

19. No the Narrative on DU

Thou shall not question Manning's motives or Heroism.
So the Pentagon official that agrees with you is worth quoting but the Air Force Official that stated that military tactics, positions, and strategy were compromised is not. You will believe the Pentagon when it fits your view, but what if they stated that according to the rules of engagement the Apache Helicopter acted with in the rules and there was no crime. You would quote them here right?

All those instances you listed were within the ROE.

The bus attack you give has zero info. Just that it was bad. Nothing of proof either way.

The second instance, all engagements are written up by the people in them. They are call After Action Reports (who should write them, someone not there) and then are sent on to higher for investigation. What speed was the convoy traveling at? At what distances were the people killed and hurt? If I am driving down the highway at 60 and shoot someone 700 yds away, do I even know it? Do you also know that Iraqis drive on any side of the road they want in any direction at anytime? Not to mention large sections of major highways were destroyed and everybody had to drive on the same highway in opposite directions. All military vehicles had placards on them in multiple languages stating that if you got with in a certain distance you were going to be shot at. The enemy was using VIEBD, driving up to or into convoys and detonating bombs.

#3 So the CIA para's knew this guy was deaf and mute and decided to shoot him anyway? How are they supposed to know that?

#4 What was the time between the call for fire and the actual hit? Both sides have a dog in the fight. US Service wants to show enemy deaths. Are the Afghan civilians sympathetic to the Taliban? They are paid for any damage, wounded or deaths that occur. Would they inflate numbers to gain more money and discredit the Armed Forces? Only we can be judged on sided and not impartial.

#5 " an apparent revenge attack", an accusatory statement by a paper and reporter with zero facts. That is very unprofessional.

[Hissyspit]

23. And you prove my point.

[4Q2u2]

29. What Point?

Why let facts get in the way of a good Narrative. I see you were not able to refute anything I questioned you on.
Those were just questions off the top of my head from experience. Not some Chair Force Warrior thinking they are an expert on War Crimes because they do not like what they read or see. In any of the instances listed you afforded no due process to the individuals that were involved. In a court of public opinion you have found them guilty. Your evidence, they were American service members so they must be bad, becasue only we lie.

[Hissyspit]

36. The point about narratives.

You "fact-checked" my narrative but not the OP's.

[4Q2u2]

39. Touche!

I agree with that statement. I did let a bias color blind me. I do have a professional disagreement with the way Manning acted, but I should know what is being originated. I made a general assumption to the OP vice what a tenor I perceive here at DU.


I know, when you ASSUME.

On your OP about Bales. There is plenty of irrefutable evidence on him and his crimes. Life without parole is what he deserves.

Till we meet again.

Regards..

[frylock]

5. the only thing harmed were the egos of some elitist asshole "diplomats"

and a lot of hurt feelings because of USA! USA! USA!

[geek tragedy]

7. Actually, most State Department people were pretty proud of those cables

and more than a few were secretly hoping their cables were among those leaked.

[pnwmom]

37. The Chinese activists who had to be relocated were harmed.

But even if you are convinced lives weren't put at risk, our efforts at diplomacy -- which is a way to avoid wars -- were harmed.

[Hydra]

43. We avoid wars??

When did that miraculous event happen?

[Hissyspit]

10. What are you talking about?

[PowerToThePeople]

22. enjoying your stay?

[Autumn]

24. Chelsea is not Little Chelsea. And her house of cards is not crumbling.

You or any other poster is not applying heat . She has received her sentence and has accepted it with grace. She has done more good in her life than most people ever do.

[Rex]

26. Disgusting post.

But that is most of your posts.

[NYC_SKP]

30. We've banned about a dozen homophobes this morning alone.

They keep coming out to play.

[Rex]

41. What gets me is the old timers here that are doing it.

It is all a matter of RESPECT imo. Also, some seem incapable of any empathy at all and that is really sad to see imo.

[Hissyspit]

38. Jury Results:

At Fri Aug 23, 2013, 11:30 AM you sent an alert on the following post:

Little Chelsea's house of cards is crumbling
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3520703

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

Bigoted. Absolutely no reason for the word "little."

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri Aug 23, 2013, 11:37 AM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Demeaning at best, blatant transphobia at worst. Hide.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Manning is 5'2".
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: While the post was derogatory, I don't think it was meant to disrupt the discussion. People on both sides of the issue feel very strongly but we all gotta calm down
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: I'm really sick of this crap.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Thank you.

[noiretextatique]

11. true, but...what about the people who started the war in the first place?

bush, inc didn't get a slap on the wrist. something is wrong when the person who exposes crimes committed during an illegal ware is the only person charged and sentenced. bush, cheney and the rest should be doing the perp walk.

[pnwmom]

15. What do cables naming Chinese human rights activists have to do with

the helicopter videos or the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Nothing. They just happened to be part of 250,000 cables that Manning was able to steal and indiscriminately release.

[Puzzledtraveller]

16. What the hell?

What's the point of this post?

[pnwmom]

17. What's the point of any post? n/t

[Puzzledtraveller]

18. Prefacing the debate or question as to what Manning did

by referencing Manning's personal choices, issues, just seems nasty. You could have the debate without ever referencing that.

[pnwmom]

27. That was exactly what his defense attorney did. They made it the core of his defense.

Are we supposed to pretend that didn't happen?

[Harmony Blue]

21. +1 Apparenty if you are not young

you are not capable of empathy.

[pnwmom]

42. Apparently you didn't know how to read beyond the partial sentence

in the subject line.

If you had read the actual post, you would have seen that I was referring to Chelsea's youth, not my own.

[Rex]

25. It is natural to have sympathy for someone if you have any amount of empathy.

Young, old. Age doesn't really matter imo...it is the predicament we find people in that causes our compassion to rise to a level of sympathy.

I feel sorry that Manning will now spend years behind bars.

[War Horse]

31. I feel sorry for Manning

Assange seems to me like a pretty cynical guy. Some good has come out of this mess, like the leaked helicopter video. But on the whole it's just a mess.

[AverageJoe90]

35. At least you can fell sorry for Bradley/Chelsea Manning.

She had a conscience.....Eddie Snowden didn't.

[Cha]

40. I most certainly get the point of your OP..

"The prosecution this week has asserted that the torrent of secret material sent by Manning to WikiLeaks included such things as code names and sensitive information on US military tactics and strategy. It also included at least one enemy target, the court was told.

In a statement that was read to the court, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Martin Nehring, a classification expert, said his review of Afghanistan and Iraq battlefield reports leaked by Manning revealed techniques for dealing with improvised explosives, the name of an enemy target, the names of criminal suspects as well as troop movements".

If only Manning hadn't leaked indiscriminately. Whose ever the hell fault it was. Whether it was that rand paul idiot supporter hiding out in London's Ecuadorian Embassy or Manning herself.

Pure speculation but I think it was Assange who fucked it up.

"Anonymous “appalled” by WikiLeaks"

By Natasha Lennard - Oct 12, 2012

"...We have been worried about the direction WikiLeaks is going for sometime now. In the past year the focus has moved away from actual leaks and the fight for freedom of information and concentrated more and more on Julian Assange and a rabid scrounging for money," the hackers noted.

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/12/anonymous_appalled_by_wikileaks/