Is this the oath taken by Bradley Manning?

[Dystopian]

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Bradley Manning chose to uphold the orders of the Constitution of the United States.

He made a decision based on his moral being.

He stands alone. He does not have the comradery or support of a group who chose to out the evils of our government/military. There is comfort and safety in numbers. Many have committed acts of civil disobedience within the realm of safety in numbers. Support. They are on the streets.....many not of the military....some, yes. I applaud their actions.
This is not the same.

Hell, I've been on the streets. I didn't stop the war. I did nothing but hold a sign.

He is a man of integrity and principle. Alone.

He stands alone. He sits in a cell alone.

How many here among us would commit this act of heroism, knowing the consequences?
Think about it.

www.bradleymanning.org

peace~

[LucySky]

1. K&R. n/t

[mike_c]

2. back in the day when we were having debates about whether soldiers...

...should obey orders to deploy to Iraq, many of us echoed legal scholars who held that military personnel have a responsibility to disobey unlawful orders and refuse, on the basis that the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan are wars of aggression, and therefore crimes against humanity.

One of the primary arguments against this view was that disobedience would be punished. My response to that argument has always been that the oath does not promise that acts of conscience will be without negative consequence, only that they are the only moral and legal option. One does not do the right thing only when it is rewarded-- often doing the right thing requires great courage in the face of power, especially when power is unequally held.

Bradly Manning exemplifies this. He is a true hero in the most fundamental sense-- he did the right thing, regardless of the risk to his freedom and his safety.

:patriot:

[Dystopian]

8. Exactly.

Brings to mind Lt. Ehren Watada:

"When you are looking your children in the eye in the future, or when you are at the end of your life, you want to look back on your life and know that at a very important moment, when I had the opportunity to make the right decisions, I did so, even knowing there were negative consequences."

peace~

[Smarmie Doofus]

3. The kid's got.........incredible intestinal fortitude.

Apparently he's wired that way.

K and multiple RRRRs.

[Dystopian]

9. Wired.....rare and real.

I hope that history will see him as another great:
Smedley Darlington Butler
Same principle.

Honor trumps orders.

peace~

[Better Believe It]

4. PFC Bradley Manning, American Patriot

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=304471&mesg_id=304471

[Dystopian]

10. American Patriot. Yes.

I agree. Great post & link.
Thank you again...
Keep on keepin' on.

peace~

[bhikkhu]

5. K&R. n/t

[me b zola]

6. K&R

[davidinalameda]

7. did he obey the lawful orders of those above him?

or did he break the law?

[Dystopian]

11. Lawful orders.

Those above him?
Who is above another?
This is not about rank.

Who is above the Constitution?
I'd really like to know.

Rank does not define honor or morals.

This country is going down....fast.


peace~

[Hissyspit]

12. We don't really know what he did.

The rush to condemn as guilty before proven has been strong in this one's case.

[Myrina]

50. ... to use your logic, the soldiers at Kent State were 'obeying orders' too ...

... even though shoot a gun at unarmed citizens is certainly 'against the law' ...

The 2 aren't mutually exclusive.

[RetroLounge]

62. Like a good German, huh?

:eyes:

RL

[cali]

86. no, not like that at all. More like the birther Lakin

neither he nor Manning was ordered to commit a war crime.

[Smarmie Doofus]

98. No, just look the other way.

He decided not to.

What would YOU do?

[notesdev]

13. He does not stand alone

Every American who truly loves this country stands with him, allies of truth and justice.

[Dystopian]

20. Right on.

A friend just sent me a link to his letter to the editor.
He has been standing out for peace and justice weekly....for years.

Wrong Man is in Jail
http://www.keenesentinel.com/articles/2010/12/25/opinion/letters_editor/free/id_422212.txt


peace~

[newtothegame]

14. Why did he do it through a website?

:shrug:

[Dystopian]

25. Who knows.....? Times are different.

Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers via the New York Times and other papers.

peace~

[sabrina 1]

46. It isn't just a website. It is an award-winning International News

Organization. It was also known for protecting its sources. Wikileaks has been doing this to other corrupt governments since it started four years ago and before they stepped on the toes of the U.S. government, were well known elsewhere in the world, and highly respected. It makes perfect sense that he would choose them to leak to.

[nashville_brook]

15. k and r-- all enemies foreign and *domestic*

[sirthomas66]

16. Quite excellent, Dystopian. If the US military kills this modern-day

hero, his efforts will be magnified a hundred times. Hopefully, Manning get out of the clutches of the military, but if he does not, it is up to us, to take up the cause.

[Statistical]

18. Nobody is going to kill him. He will serve 52 years for his crimes.

That would make him about 75 when he gets to breath free air again.

[sirthomas66]

19. No, he won't. This country doesn't have 52 years. It will be blown

off the face of the Earth long before that because a Bradley Manning didn't come forth soon enough.

[Statistical]

21. Well I will bookmark this post and we will see in 52 years.

Guess I should stop saving for retirement and just blow it on cruises and fancy cars. I won't need it since the country will be "blown off the face of the earth" anyways.

[sirthomas66]

22. Not me. I will simply help as many people as I can in the time they and

I have left. To each his/her own. Your posts speak volumes.

[sabrina 1]

54. You mean we don't need trials anymore?

Thanks for that disturbing information. Things are even worse than we thought. And here we thought that by electing Democrats we were going to restore the rule of law.

[Statistical]

56. Of course there will be a trial. If he is innocent he will be found innocent.

However jury nullification (which is what most people calling him a hero are thinking) is virtually impossible.

He will be tried by a jury of fellow servicemen.

If he actually didn't do this he can provide a defense, however if he didn't do anything (remove classified material from classified network) then he isn't a Hero is he.

Most people on this thread seem to think HE DID REMOVE CLASSIFIED MATERIAL FROM CLASSIFIED NETWORKS AND TRANSFER THAT MATERIAL TO FOREIGN THIRD PARTY.

The evidence for that will be very tight. You can believe me or not but SIPRNET AND JWICS record everything. I mean everything, every keystroke, every command, every button clicked, every login and logoff, every file accessed. The evidence of the physical element is likely beyond doubt.

So the only way he gets an "not guilty" charge is by nullification. This is when a Jury believes the person is technically guilty of a crime but feels the law is unjust and votes not guility. This is a longshot in civilian courts. It does happen but it is very very rare less than a fraction of 1% of juries are nullified. In a military court well lets just say he has more chance that an asteroid desroys the courtroom making the point moot.

[sabrina 1]

70. If he exposed crimes that the military ignored

then he is not a criminal. I know that we have come to expect nothing much in the way of justice since these wars began, but if he is properly represented and can prove that he had no other recourse to try to stop the crimes, even in the military there is a possibility that he might not be found guilty.

Several military prosecutors, eg, resigned from their jobs of prosecuting supposed terrorists because they could not in conscience proceed, they stated, with trials that were grossly unfair and where the evidence was tainted by torture. Few terror trials have resulted in convictions, despite most Americans believing they had no chance of escaping conviction. That is due in part to the fact that there are honorable people in the military.

So, until we even know what he is charged with specifically and what his defense is, he is innocent and a conviction is not a certainty. I agree with the current atmosphere in this country his chances of an acquittal are slim, however, we will have to wait and see.

[Statistical]

83. Even if he exposed a coverup if he released classified material to unathorized persons he is guilty

and will spend rest of his life behind bars.

He had a lot of options.

* chain of command (the helicopter in question wasn't in his unit)
* JAG
* Inspector General
* Even writing to Congressman on Armed Services committee (would have clearance).

[TheMadMonk]

99. Hmm, let's see. The CoC (next link at the time) gave a laughing OK...

...to a pilot clearly begging for that permission. duh-dum.

JAG? Possible, but given how the military prosecutions side of things have been subverted I really do not know how much I'd trust a defender provided by that same military. Tillman, Abu Grahib, that poor girl and her family in Afghanistan. Just three of many occasions when the military justice system was well and truly manipulated on both sides. And there's plenty more in the leaks to suggest that the proper channels for seeking redress are well and truly compromised. duh-dum.

Inspector General? If this bloke was doing his bloody job, Obama would be chairing a lot of courts martial, as the only "officer" senior to those on trial, so I'll dah-dum that too.

Um would that be the Armed Services Committee which gets more information from the media than those supposed to be reporting to it? The Committee who's members routinely step forward after the fact to declare they'd been kept in the dark on this matter, that one, or the other? Dah-bloody-dum and a big bloody red X.


Every single piece of information Manning gave Wikileaks has been freely available for perusal by the three investgative/oversight parties you mentioned. And when it's a CoC issue where that CoC is implicated in the crime what exactly is the point of going to them?

Manning went "public" because he discovered that the propper watchdogs were not only looking the other way, but selling copies of keys to the henhouse to the bloody foxes.

[midnight]

63. I guess the rule of law is inefficient....

[Dystopian]

26. We must keep him close in our hearts, and hope for the best

It's a matter of justice.

You're right, we must take up the cause.
We all have a moral obligation.
And thank you for your post(#22)
Your post speaks volumes.


peace~

[Statistical]

17. "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States"

which he did not.

"and the orders of the officers appointed over me"
which he did not.

Officers derive their authority from the Commander In Chief. General officers created standing orders prohibiting on releasing classified material to foreign entities.

Manning failed to follow those orders because he was an angry troubled young man. Nothing more.

That is why he will spend 50+ years in a cell.

[maryf]

23. Maybe he was angry and troubled due to what Ethan McCord saw

this is disturbing so be careful, Ethan McCord speaking on beyond horrific activity, but for Manning maybe truth is more important than orders...

http://www.mediasanctuary.org/movie/1810

for Manning maybe truth, human life, and decency are more important than orders...

[pnwmom]

34. Why didn't he selectively leak critical documents, rather than

dump 250,000 on Wikileaks? Manning didn't care about "truth, human life, and decency" or he wouldn't have dumped documents that could interfere with diplomacy and keeping peace. (Such as secret documents related to U.S. and Chinese talks about North Korea.)

[maryf]

52. I hope you watched the video...

it was his first, I believe...

[Statistical]

57. That doesn't answer the question.

Why not ONLY leak the helicopter video and casualty reports. He decided to leak hundreds of thousands of unrelated documents which will make diplomacy and negotiations with foreign powers more difficult.

He will get no sympathy from a jury of his peers for that action.

[pnwmom]

68. The video is beside the point. I'd be supporting him if he only

released documents that uncovered the government's misbehavior.

The reason I don't support him is that he leaked 250,000 documents not because the release of all of them would promote GOOD, but simply because he could. He and Assange were reveling in the power.

[maryf]

69. sadly he's the one in solitary confinement...

23 years old. But did you watch the video? I do think it might show cause for his anger, which is where we started...

[pnwmom]

75. I had previously seen the video. And as horrifying as it was,

it doesn't justify, for example, interfering in peace negotiations between the U.S. and China regarding North Korea.

[plantwomyn]

24. The President of the United States

derives his authority from the Constitution as do all Officers and enlisted troopers. There is no military without the Constitution.

Failing to report a war crime once you become aware that one has been committed is collusion and at minimum conspiracy after the fact. There can be no standing order nor can anyone be "ordered" to take part in a crime. The smoke and mirrors the media and the government has spewed has diverted everyone's attention in an attempt to cover up a war crime.

Most of the information Manning gave Wikileaks is bureaucratic or "diplomatic" "he said she said" and should not be labeled as "classified" in the first place.

It could easily be argued that Manning was upholding his oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" emphasis on the domestic.

[Rozlee]

29. You're right. You can only follow orders until you reach the point of being a "good German"

and putting the babies in ovens. As a retired nurse, I could have been fired for not following a doctor's orders. The exception was if I felt his orders would harm a patient. The Hippocratic Oath of doctors applies to nurses and all medical personnel. As an Army nurse, I wish I'd had Manning's courage in following my conscience. Instead, I had all these visions of being Florence Nightingale and ministering to both Americans and combatants. Those "combatants" were mostly civilians. They sometimes suffered a sort of Stockholm Syndrome that tore me apart with guilt; actually thanking us and being grateful for our care after it was our occupation and aggression that had caused their injuries and the deaths of their loved ones to begin with. As a member of an occupying army, you're never really a benign force in the lives of those whose land you occupy, no matter how much you try and tell yourself you are. Manning saw this and tried to let the world know it. And for the most part, the world didn't care. Even now, ask any man on the street who Pvt. Manning is and they'll probably say "Isn't she the chick that we rescued from that hospital in Iraq?" Hell, even ask most of them who Julian Assange is and they'll probably think he's this year newest brand of perfume. A nation in which only 7% can name the first four presidents of this country isn't a nation that is intelligent enough to form opinions on much of anything. It's a nation that might eventually put babies in ovens. Hell, it was a nation that was conned into invading a country that had never hurt us and slaughtering it's people in waves of "collateral damage." And the guy that told the story was treated as a traitor by those that know, and will never be known by the overwhelming majority.

[Rozlee]

30. I stand corrected.

Only 4% can name the first 4 presidents of this country.

[sabrina 1]

55. Only if those individuals are acting legally.

He wasn't troubled until he witnessed war crimes. He followed the rules by reporting those crimes. That is when the law was violated. Those to whom he reported war crimes who ignored those reports are the ones who disobeyed orders.

Or are you saying that now war crimes are legal in this country and that those who refuse to commit them are the criminals?

We no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions? When did all this happen? What law was passed rescinding all of our laws, abandoning all of the ratified treaties? I reject your premise. None of those laws have been officially rescinded and he is the one acting according to those laws. Anyone receiving information that laws are being broken, has an obligation to act on that information. The fact that his superior officers refused to act, places them in violation of their oaths. Unless you think the President would knowingly order people to break the law?

[Statistical]

59. He didn't only release information related to war crimes.

Lets say for sake of argument that the defense gets the documents he released that are related to war crimes supressed. That is a tiny fraction of total documents release (250,000). Hell it is a tiny fraction just of the material wikileaks has release.

Find him innocent on those counts. He is still guilty for the other releases and he will get life for that.

[sabrina 1]

66. We do not know what he leaked. People have been making

a lot of assumptions, but Wikileaks has hundreds of thousands of documents leaked by many people.

All we know is that he has been charged with 'leaking classified material, including the video of the helicopter killings of Iraqis and two Reporters'.

Where did you get the information that he is charged with leaking all of the other material? I cannot find anything clarifying that.

[wildbilln864]

88. did you see alll 250,000 docs?

Maybe there are more war crimes he wished to expose in those documents which haven't come to the light of day yet. He's innocent until proven guilty AFAIAC!

[Swagman]

60. the president did not "obey the orders of the President of the United States"

..the president is an honorary role in which he/she must obey the laws of the United States..not twist them to their own devices.

President Bush sanctioned illegal torture and the officers below him who put that into practice all dis-obeyed the laws of the USA but obeyed the dictates of an imperial president.

President Bush waged illegal war against 2 sovereign nations and participated in the killing of tens of thousands of citizens as did all those beneath him who participated in these illegal activities.

Oddly-despite all these horrendous illegal actions that have put the world in a mess that will take decades to recover from (if ever) ...all those who committed these illegal actions have not been punished and will not be yet a man who allegedly help expose all these law-breakers is being targeted for punishment and even on here some nit-pick about his alleged actions.

strange.

[rhett o rick]

74. There are two sides in this war against tyranny and you have choosen the wrong side. nm

[90-percent]

27. Quick observations

The Geneva Conventions are "quaint" and the Constitution is "just a piece of paper".

The Principals established at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials at the End of WW2 are now null and void.

The American Government now has the use of power once reserved for Kings and Monarchs and Strongmen and Tyrants.

Obama is continuing with the Nixon Doctrine of "if the President does it, it's not illegal" which was enshrined as our new Stealth Constitution during the dark GW Bush years.

America's only hope is the courage of more brave men like Bradley Manning to do their duty as ascribed in the pre-GWB Constitution.

-90% jimmy

[Vattel]

36. The chief executive is above the law. Ourconstitutional rights are openly invaded.

Well-said: "America's only hope is the courage of more brave men like Bradley Manning to do their duty as ascribed in the pre-GWB Constitution."

[90-percent]

64. Thanks

I try to channel Hunter S. Thompson and Frank Zappa in to all my posts. And I was doing word salads years before Sarah Palin stole my riffs.

"The lights have to stay on us for a while because the people in power cant be trusted because of what they've done in the last decade."

I strive to toss a post salad as concisely as Michael Moore does when he speaks. Others I find magnificent at compressing complex issues into understandable terms are Elizabeth Warren and Alan Grayson. Thom Hartman, Max Keiser, Cenk, Bill Moyers etc. Theres some people out there good at that and Michael Moore has been one of them.

I want the world to say to the military industrial congressional complex;

At long last, America, have you no sense of decency?

jim

[Recursion]

28. If it was civil disobedience, he has to accept the penalty for what he did

That's part of non-violent direct action.

If he was a troubled young man who wanted to cause a stir, then once again he has to accept the penalty for what he did.

I think a lot of people here are reading their own motivations into PFC Manning's actions.

[pnwmom]

33. I agree. There seems to be a lot of projection here. n/t

[liberation]

47. .... and they say irony was dead

LOL

[RetroLounge]

67. +1000

:rofl:

RL

[Dystopian]

97. You need to explain yourself. Please.

As I view the replies and comments, you stand alone also.
Well...not standing....Rolling on the floor.
Why?

Please shock me with an intellectual response .......sans smilies.
Honestly, I don't expect to be shocked.

peace~

[RetroLounge]

101. I don't need to do a thing..

But I wasn't responding to your OP, was I?

I in fact agree with it, and was laughing at the irony of the posters who project, calling out projection.

RL

[Dystopian]

102. Thank you....and my apology.

The sub-thread was difficult to understand/follow...I felt that (you thought) I was the one projecting.
You're right...you didn't need to do a thing. Yet you did, and I thank you.
I also apologize for my tone as the topic hits so close to home for me....

Please accept my heartfelt apology ...I was rude.

peace~

[RetroLounge]

103. No prob. Rude happens.

I'm rude more often than I need be...

:hi:

RL

[Dystopian]

104. ; )

Ahhh... forgiveness.
Rude happens....yes.

You made me smile....:hug:

Oh! And you kicked the long-gone thread so more might read what we agree on.
Rudeness included! :D

:hi:


peace~

[Vattel]

39. No one has to accept unjust punishent.

If I disobey an unjust law, I am entitled to resist punishment. In Manning's case, if the law required that he not expose crimes, the law can go to hell--he is under no obligation to follow the law or accept punishment for breaking it.

[Recursion]

43. And I agree he's entitled to "resist punishment"

Particularly if he had just spread the air strike video (the diplomatic cables seem like a different thing to me, since they're simply embarrassing rather than revelatory of crimes). However, after you've been arrested I'm not sure what you can do to resist punishment; if he's sentenced to hard labor (he won't be) he would be justified in refusing that labor (though that comes with its own punishment).

[rhett o rick]

76. He is being punished via torture before a trial. He is innocent until proven guilty. nm

[RaleighNCDUer]

89. You obviouosly do not understand civil disobedience.

There is no civil disobedience rulebook that says you have to accept state execution, or go to jail for life, or even for a day. Did Ellsberg publish the Pentagon Papers, then walk up to the nearest FBI guy and say "Hokay, here I am - put me away for the rest of my days"?

The point of civil disobedience is NOT the punishment for it. It is its own justification. As for Manning having to "accept the penalty", it is all bass ackwards - he already DID accept the possibility of legal penalty when he leaked the information. Just because he knew he'd be in for a shitstorm if found out doesn't mean we are obliged to give it to him.

The fact is, our government is broken. The 250k leaked memos do prove a couple things - that 95% of what is classified has no business being classified; that we are no longer a democratic republic but an empire with only the trappings of a democratic republic; and that our allies have as much reason to distrust us as our enemies do.

If I believed in god, I would pray that this is the beginning of the end of the American empire.

[Recursion]

90. I'd say 99% of what's classified has no business being classified

And my argument may have obscured my actual opinion here: there's so much bullshit flying from all corners here that I simply have no idea who did and didn't do what, and I think it's too early to form a judgment. And that keeping Manning in solitary is almost certainly vindictive and shouldn't be happening.

and that our allies have as much reason to distrust us as our enemies do.

well, as my sig says...

[Dystopian]

94. This is different.....as stated in OP

I was comparing what many of us do to what Bradley Manning did...
Safety in numbers, etc....civil disobedience, non-violent direct action is not the same.
Actions of civil disobedience take courage and many have accepted the consequences of their actions. Police State.

Please explain your statement:
I think a lot of people here are reading their own motivations into PFC Manning's actions.

Bradley Manning is in the military...different....not the same


peace~

[sabrina 1]

95. Who said he was a troubled young man? All we know is that

the war crimes he witnessed troubled him according to what we are told, and that he tried to report them, and was ignored.

I agree that people are reading a lot of things into this case which are not backed up by any facts.

We don't know what documents he leaked. The hundreds of thousands of docs relating to the two wars, the Embassy Cables and the Corporate Leaks, are three separate groups and it's very likely that he did not have access to the Embassy Docs or the Corporate Docs.

All we know is coming from a person who is not a very reputable source, the hacker Lamo who claims Manning confessed to him. But this is someone with a lot of issues of his own. Most of what is being said about this case, is pure speculation at this point.

[stevenleser]

31. This interpretation of the oath is a massive fail. n/t

[pnwmom]

32. Yes, that's the oath he violated when he dumped 250,000 emails

to a server owned by Wikileaks.

Anyone who thinks the Australian Assange and his international org, Wikileaks, stands FOR the U.S. Constitution is seriously deluded.

[sabrina 1]

38. What they stand for is exposing corruption and human rights

violations everywhere. Sadly, the U.S. is now among the worst violators of Human Rights in the civilized world. If there is nothing to hide, if we are now following the rule of law and prosecuting war criminals, then the U.S. has nothing to fear from News Organizations like Wikileaks. And, since it seems you are feeling particularly victimized, Wikileaks has been exposing these kinds of crimes in other countries for four years. Were you objecting to their work then?

As we saw from the leaked documents, the State Dept. attacked the European Human Rights Court for critizing their record on torture, including some of the world's most respected Human Rights judges.

I thought when Bush was president, we were screaming for exposure of these war crimes.

He is a hero, and I hope, like Daniel Ellsberg, he will be rewarded by history for standing up against war crimes.

[sabrina 1]

35. He witnessed war crimes and tried to report them.

No one listened. This is the result of not prosecuting war criminals.

In the released documents, he is proven to be correct, that the U.S. was handing over detainees to the new Iraqi forces who were torturing them and the U.S. knew this but did nothing to stop it.

If it were not for people like him and Wikileaks, those victims would have no voice at all. Now, what will the American people do about it?

I hope support for him grows as the facts become to decent people everywhere.

[pnwmom]

37. Why didn't he selectively leak documents related to any war crimes

he witnessed?

Why, instead, did he leak 250,000 unrelated documents simply because he could? If he wasn't lying when he claimed responsibility for leaking the emails, then he broke the oath he swore -- there's no way around that.

[sabrina 1]

41. Documents are being released selectively.

The documents which confirmed what he claimed to have seen, the handing over of detainees to new Iraqi forces only to be tortured by them, with the U.S. looking the other way, HAVE been released, proving him to have been correct.

Five major news organizations are reviewing the documents. This is news and attempts to suppress it are wrong. There are victims of these crimes, who had no voice. When he tried to speak for them, he was ignored. What would you have done? Would you be silent knowing people are being so abused? I don't know what I would have done, but other U.S. troops have courageously taken action to try to stop these crimes also, although they are few. But these are the soldiers we should be proud of.

We have laws, they have been violated. His oath was to defend the Constitution, not a political party or the U.S. government. This was for a reason and apparently he took it seriously. I don't know that I would have had his courage. Some of our troops have committed suicide rather than participate in these crimes, others have refused to return to Iraq or Afghanistan. This is what he chose to do.

The solution for this government is simple. Take these revelations and restore the rule of law. Start prosecuting the criminals, and let the world know we will not tolerate these crimes. Why is this not happening?

[pnwmom]

42. Manning didn't release them selectively. He handed them all over

to a foreign organization so that they could release them in whatever fashion they chose.

[sabrina 1]

45. He handed them over to an award-winning International News

Organization. Should the Kenyon whistle-blower NOT have handed over HIS government documents to Wikileaks? Were Americans screaming over that 'espionage'? Certainly the corrupt government of Kenya would like to have made the same claim you just made.

For its work in disseminating the leaked Kenyon Documents, Wikileaks received Amnesty International's 'New Media Award' for 2009.

Everything is global now. When we invade, illegally, other people's countries, it is not just our business. It is the business of every country whose citizens we victimize. In our detention centers people from all over the world were tortured, some tortured to death, without trial or even charges.

We are not exempt from the same kind of scrutiny we demand for other nations, even though some Americans seem to think we are.

We need more of these international news organizations. As we have seen, our own media will never publish anything the MIC doesn't want published. So the war crimes rage on. Hopefully with more of this kind of reporting, the criminals will finally be prosecuted and no one will have the need to leak anything.

Interesting you blame him for not sorting through the documents. He reported the crimes. Where is the anger towards those who ignored those reports?

[pnwmom]

65. He was fully capable of reading the documents he was putting

on the thumb drive. It was his choice, over a matter of months, to download everything, regardless to whether the releases would increase the chance for GOOD in the world or the chance for evil. If he was a Daniel Ellsberg, only releasing documents that uncovered misbehavior by our government, I'd be on his side. But he chose to violate his oath by dumping documents indiscriminately. He doesn't get a free pass by dumping them on an "award winning international news organization."

[sabrina 1]

72. You don't know any of that. You are basing your assumptions

on the statements of one guy, Lamo whose own credibility is and has been in question for quite a while.

In fact we don't know anything other than the fact he has been charged with leaking classified documents. Even with that, we don't know what documents are involved. He may have leaked only what he believed backed up his claims of Iraqis being tortured, and the helicopter video.

You are making a lot of assumptions without any real information as to what he leaked.

[pnwmom]

78. If he only dumped the handful of documents related to

atrocities in the Iraq war, I will feel much more sympathy for him. But as a service member with access to top secret documents, he broke his oath. And, like anyone committing civil disobedience, he will need to accept the penalty.

[sabrina 1]

82. If he was upholding the oath he took to protect the Constitution

then he did not break his oath. Or are all these oaths just for show? Because if they are, then young soldiers like him should not be led to believe they really are supposed to defend and protect the Constitution.

[pnwmom]

85. If he released documents related to confidential diplomatic

negotiations, such as those between the US and China. then he wasn't defending the Constitution, but actually putting it at risk.

IF he was the one who leaked all the documents, which I agree we don't yet know.

[sabrina 1]

87. Yes, we don't know, as you say. Actually I don't see how he would

have access to the Diplomatic cables. The military stuff, yes, but he is being blamed for everything Wikileaks has right now. Eg, the banking industry documents which according to Assange, number in the tens to hundreds of thousands also.

So, there may be several leakers.

[Swagman]

61. most Nazis obeyed the law. It comes as a shock to find the

USA is a rogue and brutal law-breaker as a country and tramples on the laws of other nations.

the vast majority of cables are tittle tattle nonsense and diplomatic gossip that reveal the USA continues to manipulate the governments of other nations against their citizen's wishes including the current Secretary of State who wanted (illegal) information about diplomat's credit cards.

Yet people still nit-pick about Manning's alleged actions.

[cactusfractal]

40. So what's the difference between PVT Manning and LTC Lakin?

The "right" thing to do is not to leak secrets to a third party. It's called espionage. And while I applaud Julian Assange, an Australian NOT subject to the UCMJ, it's a fact that what Manning has done is patently illegal and counter to military opsec protocols.

It's one thing to disobey an order you consider illegal:

Capt Smith: "Execute those civilians and burn the village!"
SSgt Jones: "No, sir, I will not. Those are considered protected persons and executing them is a war crime!"

Then there's:

LTC Lakin: "I'm not going to Iraq because I believe POTUS is foreign-born and not qualified to be CinC."
Military Tribunal: "Not your call to make. Six months in Leavenworth and out you go."

And:

PVT Manning: "I believe the US is waging illegal war. I will therefore dump reams of classified materials into the lap of a foreign party."
Military: "Yeah, we're gonna put you in a hole."

Don't let your AGREEMENT with his BELIEFS allow you to forgive his ACTIONS. Objecting to war doesn't mean you release secrets to which you have access. There are other ways. And after all, he did promise to keep the secrets. The only real difference I see is that Manning risked his own well-being to get this info out, believing it to be right. Lakin was personally benefiting from his disobedience.

Ain't conscience a bitch?

[sabrina 1]

44. The issue of leaking documents being legal or illegal was settled

when the U.S. went after Daniel Ellsberg. It was also settled regarding the publishing of them in the case of the U.S. Government against the NYT.

It is not espionage to be a whistle-blower. And the press has a right to publish information when it is determined that the harm to the people of covering it up is greater than the harm of publishing it. This was all decided already. A precedent has been set and any charges of espionage against a news organization, as proposed by Joe Lieberman et al, are simply foolish.

Those others you cite, what did they accomplish for the victims? Did the crimes stop due to their actions? Kevin Benderman was another brave soldier who went to jail rather than follow illegal orders, but even with all the publicity he received and his willingness to report on the crimes, still nothing was done to restore the rule of law.

Full exposure and prosecutions are what are needed. Instead we have a government that is actively protecting war criminals.

He did the right thing. Now it's up to the American people to demand the restoration of the rule of law and no protection for war criminals. I thought this was one of the main reasons we elected democrats ... not so they could protect the Bush gang from the consequences of their crimes.

[pnwmom]

71. Daniel Ellsberg was not a member of the military with routine access

to top secret documents, so his case is NOT a precedent for Manning. Manning was a soldier who swore an oath, and -- if he broke it, as he appears to claim -- then he will be subject to the penalties.

Your other point doesn't apply either ("And the press has a right to publish information when it is determined that the harm to the people of covering it up is greater than the harm of publishing it.') He didn't ONLY leak documents which uncovered harm being done to innocent people. Among the emails he leaked were documents that uncovered no harm being done to anyone -- but which could interfere with critical peace negotiations, such as those the U.S. and China were having concerning North Korea.

[sabrina 1]

77. Again, you are making assumptions as to what he leaked.

We don't know what he leaked, and being a member of the military doesn't make someone automatically guilty IF what they were doing was exposing criminal activity. He attempted, or so we are told, to go through the proper channels. But then again, we are relying on the statements of Lamo, whose own credibility is in question.

[pnwmom]

79. Yes, I am making those assumptions. If it turns out that

the case is very different, then I will change my opinion of him.

[sabrina 1]

48. The difference between Lakin and Manning?

There is simply no comparison. Manning was objecting to human rights violations and war crimes that he witnessed AND that he was able to verify, and has.

Lakin has zero proof for his claims, in fact he has been proven wrong, and he has exhibited no concerns for the actual crimes being committed in these wars, starting with the illegal invasions themselves.

Why would you even try to compare the two? One is telling the truth, the other is using proven lies to try to get out of serving. No comparison at all.

[UpInArms]

96. so I guess you think that Abu Ghraib was okay and that the abuse and torture

pictures should not have been leaked.

bleh on you.

[Myrina]

49. False presumption ....

... the question of what oath he's upholding prematurely presumes that he's a Wiki source.
He's not been identified by Wiki or Assange as a source and to my knowledge he's not admitted it, either.

:shrug:

[sabrina 1]

53. Supposedly he confessed to Lamo that he leaked the

helicopter video. Other than that, I don't know that he has confessed to anything else. And if Lamo is the only source of even that supposed confession, we would need to hear from some other source.

[Recursion]

84. Too bad the cat suddenly got Pouslon's tongue....

I think Assange is comparable to Ellsburg; I'm not sure we have anybody whose position is comparable to what the media says Manning's is. But then again there's so much bullshit flying around on all sides of this story I'm hesitant to make any judgments about anybody.

[pnwmom]

73. The claim is that he not only admitted it, he was bragging about it.

Time will tell.

[sabrina 1]

81. And Lamo is the only source for that airc. Not a very reliable source.

[earcandle]

51. We are not certain he has done anything.

He is being held on allegations based on Lamo, a nut case.

I think this is a government sting looking for a way to get at WikiLeaks.

We need to get him out of jail, and we need to see Wire's chat logs.
Dont'cha think?

Stop Torture

[RegieRocker]

58. Standing up for what is right trumps any and all

Previous written or oral agreements period! Think like a Nazi be a Nazi. Follow your leaders and the herd no matter what.

[kirby]

80. He probably signed this...

http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/new_sf312.pdf

[timtom]

91. K & Flipping R, Jack!

Thanks for being a voice of reason.

[BrklynLiberal]

92. K&R. He is a hero.

[Kurovski]

93. K&R9nt)

[Dystopian]

100. Thank you all.

Many standing with Bradley Manning. The truth shall set us free? We'll watch, wait, hope....
I appreciate the many strong statements and informative posts.
There are some great fighters for truth here...
The recommendations.... all for Bradley Manning....

I will end with this...
I've worked with Courage to Resist before...not only through donations.
Enough said.

Sometimes we need to put down our signs, get off the streets, stop collecting signatures....
It's a matter of sanity and reality.

And then we return to where we know we belong.


Please sign and donate if you are able.
Heartfelt thanks.
http://www.standwithbrad.org/

peace and love to all~