eom

about someone who gave away a lot of your secrets?

He was tasked with doing a job, and he went against the terms and conditions of his employment. He's not a Daniel Ellsberg 'journalist', he had a duty to keep his employer's business private, no matter what it entailed.

That's not a hero in my book.

Right now, the military (and many Americans) think he's simply a traitor.

corrupt thugs they are.

"Many Americans" doesn't mean much at all.

The media is complicit and the two decade assault on education is also to blame.

"Many Americans" believed Iraq had WMDs.
"Many Americans" agreed with Bush's illegal wiretapping program.
"Many Americans" voted for Bush and McCain and Romney.

Many Americans are idiots.

on what that individual thought you were doing was evil. History would be his judge, too.

Anyone with half a brain knows that if you're working with top secret military data and decide to leak, distribute, steal or sell it,, they will lock you up and throw away the key. That is something that should just not be done. Because of the leaks, there were suddenly foreign sources who had to fear for their lives. It also threatened to harm American soldiers. And undo a lot of diplomatic work that would just make things worse for the U.S.

War is dirty and ugly. No argument there. And it leads to some very horrific acts. Madness begets madness. And every country has secrets. And they have spies. That's a necessary evil. Every cointry gets their hands dirty once in a while.

Manning was wrong to do what he did. Who decides what is right and what is wrong? He knew what was coming, regardless of what kinds of mental issues he has.

that Manning was not an idiot, he did piss off Hillary Clinton. And the way things look, she's about to be our next President. It's not going to go well for him.

Yeah, he's an idiot. But like I said, history will judge. If the African-American side had not won the battles in the 1960's, then MLK would have gone down in history with J. Edgar Hoover's description of him. As they say, it's the victors that write the history books.

I'm not sure this country can survive 4 more years of right-wing DLC "Centristism."

Out of curiosity, which "real" candidates for President (Alan Grayson won't be running; neither will Elizabeth Warren) will meet your standards for political purity?

And Alan Grayson would be great. Dennis Kucinich would have been perfect for the office. Bernie Sanders would be great as well. I want someone who isn't on the side of the wealthy for a change.

However, I hope that they will at least have one candidate worth voting for.

Like the type you used to see in New England (and maybe still do in some cases).

He's isn't even DLC; he's worse than that.

DEFINITELY "New England Republican".

she clears the field, with the possible exception of Joe Biden, who she beats like a rented mule in Iowa. And while the reich wing, motivated by both eight years of Obama and their deep abiding hate for Hillary will have an incredible incentive to finally unite, right now they don't have anyone who really tickles their fancy.

He did absolutely no damage to the US.

that people who have helped the US have been tortured and/or killed over his revalations.

When the govt thinks that anything can be a secret democracy suffers.

For that I am glad Manning brought crimes and wrong doings into a public light.

From what I gather he tried to use other channels and the MSM chose to protect the state over the rights of the American people to know what it's govt is doing. Basically the MSM is bought and owned by powerful people who don't give a fuck about the laws ,honesty, the truth, or the American people and will use the powerful media they control to create the propaganda necessary to achieve their goals.

The "journalistic" rags that used his stuff need to step up and defend this truth-teller.

Cowards.

I've heard sometimes PressTV lie but I've only followed their Occupy coverage, which has been both truthful and superb. In tremendous, stark comparison to "our" media's "coverage".

American media are owned by some six corporations. Romney's Bain Capital is involved in Clear Channel. I'd prefer the truth from RT than lies from "our" korporate media.



Amber Lyon reveals CNN lies and war propaganda

shit that violated the position of trust that he was given. He violated several federal laws as well as the UCMJ and provided nothing. I hope they just take his deal and get on with life, but wouldn't be sad in the bit if he gets life. Some day I hope to be visiting the Ft. Leavenworth Commissary and see this piece of shit bagging groceries.

naughty, naughty!

do you like soup?

yes, i know i ask this alot, but seriously man. calm down.

we supposedly have Whistle Blower protection laws, although you'd never know it lately.

What's so interesting about the anti-Bradley Manning posts here is that most of what he revealed, other than a few cables in early, were BUSH WAR CRIMES.

Why do you object to anyone revealing the crimes of the criminal Bush Administration?

He is a hero. Airc, we Democrats railed and railed about the fact that no one had the guts to expose those war criminals for eight years. Now someone did just that so I am puzzled by the sudden change of heart from a few people here. Care to explain it?

... which in my book is very much in the same category of the actions that Manning is being hung (or could be hung) for.

If it weren't for the efforts of people like Ellsberg and Manning, our country wouldn't be learning about what it is to "be a Democracy" now, as it would have been thrown out a long time ago if there weren't these checks and balances, whether or not they are classified as "illegal" or not. Many things that the PTB do today to maintain their power in things like bribery, etc. would have been considered crimes before the times they've been "legalized" by their buying our government and justice system.

and MY RIGHT to know what MY government is doing with MY money
in MY name.

Our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan (and every other shit hole in the 3rd World)
are fighting for the right of the 1%, the IMF, and the Global Corporations to loot the
resources of the 3rd World.

EXXON & the Global Corporations got the OIL and Privatization of Iraq.
The American people got ZERO,
and the Iraqis got WORSE than ZERO.

Follow the Money.

The bare bones, guts, core of the problems we face.

Thanks, Kpete & bvar22.

In what other aspects of the civilian government would you like military folk to intervene?

There's no point for anybody to try to guess what your actual analysis is or what facts you think support your views

something I can assume, as apparently you do, that is in my best interests. Especially "secret" diplomacy. From what I can glean, for example, diplomacy got Tony Blair to put in with Bush even though he was bald faced lying about the dangers Saddam was supposed to represent. And our secret diplomacy was great for getting Egypt and orhers to do our torturing for us.

Regardless of past expectations of secrecy for high level communications, lying us into war and denying secret torture tend to put a damper on my willingness to glorify secrecy in diplomacy. And then of course, we could talk about Kissinger...

invariably operate on behalf of the public good: powerful organized interests always exist, and they always exert a very definite pressure on their own behalf; blowhards and complete idiots and demagogues and wacko ideologues are not unknown in politics either; and there are also always more than enough people who are entirely sure that they alone are good and that they alone possess Eternal Truth

The Iraq war has been a shameful disgrace IMO, in dozens of ways, from the very beginning: it is true that the Bush administration with great cynicism lied us into a war, which they then tried to convert into a general conflation in the region, beating their wardrums against Iran and Syria and other countries as well, and for what? well, probably to increase Bush's power as President, for one thing, but also to hand wads of cash to their friends in the defense industry

None of this is surprising. I do not say you must accept it, because I hope you do not accept it. But to me, not accepting it means approaching the world with steely-eyed realism: it is critically important to have an accurate and detailed analysis of what happens, based on actual verifiable fact, in order to plan responses with even limited chance of success. In particular, our responses to the status quo cannot be based simply on our emotional reactions: they must be based on efforts to understand and to communicate with people whom we do not understand and who do not understand us and with whom our communication is arduous and strained. This is true at the level of popular politics in the US, and it is also true in international relations

I screamed with rage when Kissinger, who had made his reputation as a strategist of nuclear war, was awarded the Nobel Peace prize; he is IMO a criminal who belongs behind bars; but I grit my teeth and consider the possibility that those who awarded him the prize were as opposed to the Vietnam war as I was and that they might have been shrewder political thinkers than I ever was

You are welcome to support Mr Manning if you so choose. I will not, because he seems to have no coherent analysis and because the justifications I hear of his behavior never seem to me to be supported by actual facts. An fact-based analysis of the world as-it-is, accurate enough to begin to suggest definite tactics and strategies to move us towards the world as-we-hope-it-will-be, is not particularly easy to construct: instinct and economic interest and social pressure and media propaganda all militant against clear thinking. But without a coherent fact-based analysis, we hardly ever win

as someone who followed his conscience and tried to wake up his compatriots, while fully aware that this would mean a life behind bars or death once he got caught.

Col. Lakin.

The belief that you know best is not license to break the law.

As posted elsewhere in this thread, Manning was not exposing a particular violation of law. And if he did, there are avenues to do that, which he did not pursue.

I like the idea of government transparency. I also understand the need for confidentiality in certain government transactions. Manning made no distinction, and he broke the law, as evidenced by his guilty plea.

I appreciate that he thought he was doing right. He knew he was breaking the law doing so. He didn't do what he did under the whistleblower laws... thus, as any conscientious objector, he must accept the punishment given to him.

I wish he had done it differently.

what the rest of the world has read. Mostly he exposed the Bush War Crimes, something we here begged for someone to have the guts to do for eight long years. The revelations in the leaks from the War Logs were from the Bush Era. Did you want Bush's war crimes protected during that administration or have you since changed your mind for some reason?

I really am curious. Is it that you did not know what the leaks contained or did you always believe Bush's crimes should be protected, or have you had a change of heart about the subject? I really am curious as to why democrat above all, would not fully support the exposure of the crimes of the Bush Administration?

and the liars and murderers he exposed are already in the process of destroying it.

He had assumed that his compatriots, once they were exposed to what he had seen, would listen to the call of conscience, like he did.

He didn't want to be part of a murder machine. He wanted to contribute as much as he could to change it. He stands by what he did, that's why he is hero. A true hero as opposed to those who just willingly execute their orders.

falls well outside the realm of sane and sober political conversation

The first group of White Rose members were tried four days after their arrest, in a court where they were not permitted to mount any defense, before a judge who (it is known from films) had a habit of shouting at defendants so loudly and constantly that defendants could not be heard, and they were executed on the day of their trial, for their pamphleteering

Bradley Manning was not executed four days after his arrest, and (in fact) he does not face the death penalty: he will receive a trial, after which he will be allowed appeals. To judge from his offering guilty pleas this last week, the likely upshot will be that he will convicted and will serve a lengthy sentence

There will never be mass support for Mr Manning, because no one (including Mr Manning) has ever offered any coherent explanation of his actions, and there seems to be no prospect of a coherent explanation forthcoming. In his statement this last week, Mr Manning indicated that he released hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables in order to stir public debate, and his statement also made it entirely clear that Mr Manning could not have been aware of the actual content of the vast amounts of diplomatic material he dumped

You are, of course, entirely free to hold that view that diplomats ought never converse secretly with their home governments, and you are entirely free to persuade the international community to adopt whatever openness standards seem appropriate to you -- but that would be a long uphill fight, because every single government in the world uses accepted privileges (such as the diplomatic pouch) in order to converse in secret with their diplomats. As an alternative, you could try persuading your Congressman that the US should never converse in secret with its diplomats, and you could ask your Congressman to demand the US publish all its diplomatic correspondence in realtime, as the correspondence occurs: however, I expect most Congressman would thereafter regard you as nuts

All of a sudden "the rule of law" is sacrosanct.

If President Obama was consistent he would pardon Manning and then say "We need to move on. While Mr. Manning's conduct was illegal he was clearly acting in good faith and thus while I can't condone it I think pursuing this course of legal action is too divisive."

Except Manning's conduct was for the public's benefit and made some special interests look bad. Thus he is not worthy of lenience.

by the civilian government, or (say) that soldiers are entitled to decide how the civilian government should conduct its diplomatic affairs -- and, in fact, if you really hold such beliefs I'd much prefer that you express your views in public, so I know exactly with whom I am dealing

However, I am unlikely to adopt your views, because I consider a military not under civilian control dangerous to whatever democracy we might actually have

had Manning's releases been organized around a few definite issues. But his statement this week makes clear that he downloaded and released hundreds of thousands of documents indiscriminately, and he laid out a timeline that proves he cannot possibly have known what he was releasing. He didn't know what he was releasing in his five minute chat with a WaPo reporter, and that's why he didn't tell her anything definite. He didn't know what he was releasing when he chatted with Lamo, and that's why he merely told Lamo he expected Wikileaks to release a searchable database of cables, rather than providing any specific information. That Wikileaks did release the cables as a searchable database, and made efforts to enroll major newspapers in a search through the cables for headline-grabbing stories, without any prior unifying malfeasance narrative, shows the same thing: Wikileaks had no idea exactly what Manning had handed to them, because Manning himself really didn't know what his data-dump contained

His position, under the law, will be uncomfortable, as he has seriously abused his security access. The idea, that we should look sympathetically upon him as a whistle-blower, might have been more attractive to some of us, had his releases focused on specific instances of evident malfeasance. But following Manning's statement, that idea cannot be entertained any longer

Every single country in the world expects its ambassadors to be able to communicate secretly with the home government, and international law respects and supports such expectations of diplomatic privilege. Manning lacked all the experience, training, and skills to make any specific decisions whatsoever about the appropriateness of various diplomatic secrets -- and, in fact, the record today shows that he made no such specific decisions: he simply downloaded whatever diplomatic materials he could easily download (numbering hundreds of thousands of cables) and then released them to Wikileaks. He did this deliberately, despite earlier warnings from higher level officials about his failure to follow security protocols, and despite additional training on security. The principle, that the US military answers to civilian government, implies (among other things) that members of the military (at any level) are not allowed to subvert the international diplomatic work of the civilian government: PFC Manning, however, apparently believed he was entitled to do just that

so that citizens are completely unaware of their crimes. That's a given.

A lot of people get upset when their government's corruption and duplicity are put on display, but it's time for a major paradigm shift in the way human affairs are conducted. That can't happen unless we know how the system works.

was Manning trying to expose?

in its maintenance of global empire, of course.

Aggressive war is a violation of the UN Charter, and thus a violation of the US Constitution, which requires our government to honor all of its agreements with other countries.

Which PARTICULAR crime was he exposing? And why didn't he go through the routes prescribed by law?

It is utterly meaningless to someone who is familiar with US history.

It's convenient to speak in general terms but to have a meaningful conversation, you'll need to provide something concrete.

Manning's leaks were mostly from the Bush era. Is there some reason why you believe that the Bush Gang should be protected from exposure? Since most of us here on DU spent the entire eight years of the Bush administration demanding they be held accountable, I don't get those few who now seem to feel otherwise. I have asked for an explanation and would truly like to know 'why the change of heart' re protecting Bush et al from exposure? That IS what the War Logs were about.

That would a strange stance for a progressive to take

Exactly how far does your tolerance for military personnel meddling in civilian government extend?

Facts are all that matter, and that is what Manning released. Information that should never have been classified in a Democracy in the first place. No wonder they tried to hide the facts, they revealed some very inconvenient truths about both parties.

Not much we didn't know on the Left, we KNEW the Bush gang lied, were war criminals and that nothing has been done about it. But we learned a few things from the few more recent cables, we learned that while we thought Democrats would never condone, let alone protect war criminals, that we were very, very wrong. I remember how we once thought there was hope of investigations, of prosecutions, of the truth about the Bush War Criminals coming to light once we elected Democrats, but now we know better. And it's far better not to have expectations and be disappointed than to have the facts.

Now that we have that valuable information which we are entitled to, we can make better decisions as citizens.

So thank you Bradley Manning for helping us understand what seemed to be a mystery, inexplicable, for a while. We know know the truth. And that enhances the power of the people as it should.

nor is it controversial, except perhaps in some extremist circles. The notion is simply this: ultimate government decisions rest with elected civilians, not with military personnel, whatever rank they hold and whether they be four star generals or colonels or privates. Both domestic and foreign policy are determined by civilians, not by military personnel

Mr Manning is, of course, entitled to his views. In particular, he is entitled to believe that US diplomatic correspondence ought not be secret. But members of the military, including Mr Manning, are not authorized to make decisions overriding the laws of the civilian government. Whether or not Mr Manning thinks diplomacy would better be conducted, if everyone everywhere could read all diplomatic cables, as a member of the military with access to classified documents, Mr Manning is not entitled to release hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables to the world: the decision, about how diplomatic cables are handled rests with the civilian government, and is to be determined by the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the civilian government, not by soldiers of any rank

military? Did you know that they do not swear to protect the US Military or even the US Government? Do you know WHAT they swear to protect and defend?

Manning took HIS oath seriously, and acted accordingly knowing what the consequences would be. Too bad our civilian leadership and military leadership have forgotten THEIR oaths, which are not very different from the one Manning took and lived up to.

I don't think I am the one 'who doesn't understand'. Nor do I think Manning didn't understand. The sad thing is how posts like yours demonstrate how far we have strayed from the principles he felt obliged to uphold. To his credit.

the same way the right wing defends Col. Lakin's oath.

No matter how right you think he is, he broke the law. You pretend there was no other possible recourse, which is untrue. Just like the Freepers think Lakin was "upholding his oath". He wasn't - he was a cowardly jerk-off, who thought he was above the law.

Manning is not above the law. Nobody has shown that he was trying to uncover a PARTICULAR crime. It's been asked a few times here, and nobody will answer honestly. You wanna yell "WAR CRIMES!"? Well, which particular war crime? And can you argue that every single document he released was related to a particular crime?

No, you cannot. I understand that you agree with his notion that government should be transparent. I don't understand why you think a single private in the military should decide for himself what the government should release.

up-front about your position

You mean like that which supports and even facilitates the overthrow of other governments, or the murder of journalists and civilians in other countries?

I am unaware of any evidence that US diplomats assassinate journalists

Attention is detail is essential to any sort of effective political action: if you jumble together things that happened in different times, and in different places, under different administrations, you will obtain no clear and exact view of underlying political dynamics, and so you will be reduced to incoherent howling that almost nobody will understand

Are you, for example, claiming that US diplomats are engaged in torturing people? I myself am unaware of any evidence of that

Diplomats, of course, do and say what they are told to. They function on behalf of the system that employs them. If they are told to speak and act in a manner that facilitates a coup d'etat in Honduras, then typically, that is what they will do. It makes much more sense to hold the corrupt system responsible, and work to reform it.

I merely asked for some evidence for your belief

There's no way to vote on posts here, but you said it extremely well.

who can't think in terms other than black/white, good/bad.

the War Logs released by Manning were from the Bush era.

Only a little dry commentary on the fear of millions of Americans, of the deep and meaningful change that our civilization is in dire need of.

thank you!

"true amercian hero".. no.

available to US viewers today. It epitomizes the 'truth has a liberal bias' meme, because they actually for the most part, do report news that the rest of the Corporate Media does not. It also gives a voice to many Progressives like Thom Hartman and many others like him who are not allowed on the Corporate Media.

Not to mention their excellent discussion programs featuring actual Democrats and their documentaries are also excellent. Surprised to see anyone on DU apologize for RT frankly.

are not deterred by that from commenting on it. Lol!

when you see the word 'Russian' and have no clue at all about what RT does. As I said, it is the only International News Network worth watching in the US which may be why its audience has grown so much in such a short time. People want facts when they watch the news..

What's funny about your comment is that the whole world views the US Media as nothing BUT propaganda, including most of us Democrats who watched how they enabled the lies of the Bush War Criminals eg despite knowing they were lies, contributing to those crimes themselves.

RT otoh, has way more credibility both here among people who value facts and certainly around the world where people are no longer stuck back in the '50s.

...Russia is still not a paragon of Free Speech, and any outlet attached to the Government should be viewed as suspiciously.

killing of at least two war veterans, the brutal treatment of those falsely arrested while in detention where they never should have been, the arrests of journalists covering the story, and even the arrests and abuse of elected officials who dared to support them here in the US, not to mention that all of it, we now know for sure, was coordinated at a Federal level, Russia seems way ahead of us at this point in terms of respect for free speechj.

Since ince the world watched in shock those brutal attacks on peaceful, unarmed protesters exercising their 1st Amendment rights, we really are not taken seriously anywhere when it comes to the issue of free speech. Not to mention the lies told by the Corporate Media, the distortions with the goal of protecting Wall St?? Please, we have zero credibility on issues such as torture, free speech, war crimes etc.

By contrast, when Russians went out to protest Putin, no blood was shed, yes there were arrests, but there was no comparison to the brutality and the destruction of basic human rights demonstrated against Americans doing the same thing, enough that the UN Rappateur appealed to the US to intervene. An ironic request, considering it WAS the US government that attacked those American citizens.

Get back to me when people can protest injustices here in the US without ending up with their heads bashed in or their kidneys ruptured or when Jouranlists are allowed to cover a story without being brutalized and arrested for doing so.

Free speech in the US? Yes, so long as you don't dare to question the policies of this government. It is shameful, also shameful is the silence of members of Congress as they watched those they represent being abused and injured and jailed, illegally. We are in no position to criticize anyone else as we are now being repeatedly told.

who even knew people like bradley manning still existed?

we need more bradley mannings in this world.