regardless of the contents of that information and the consequences of its release...is factually statutorily a crime.

There is no moral or legal motivation that can supplant that point. It doesn't matter why he released it, it's a crime. If he had concerns about the legality of any of the contents of the files or that they contained evidence of war-crimes, there is a procedure to follow which is to contact the Inspector General. He didn't do that...he might even have a defense if he had done that and been rebuffed...but he never did it in the first place.

There is no "alleged" to it, it's a crime. As someone points out down-thread, MLK Jr. was a criminal too...it's not always a bad thing. My mayor's a criminal...he got arrested and convicted last year for refusing to disperse a crowd protesting for DC statehood. When he got released from jail, there was a crowd waiting to give him an ovation.

Denying that what Manning did was a crime is silly. Of course it's a crime or else everybody who has that job would do it willy-nilly and that might endanger national security.

There is crime as defined by national laws & military codes of justice, and there is crime as defind by the Geneva Conventions.

The patriotic "Good Germans" would give up Jews that were in hiding to the Nazis simply because they thought it was the right thing to do - the law mandated that they must, and that made sending innocent people to their deaths justifiable, even noble, in their eyes. They did not see it as immoral or unethical, because they were doing what the authorities told them to do. Many people seem to prefer to let authority determine what is moral ethical for them.

... Just like the current system legitimizes and makes the system of bribery that the banksters are involved in completely "legal" and doesn't allow for it to prosecute many of them for crimes of corruption that they clearly would have been nailed with with laws that were in place in the past and corruptly altered for the present.

There is similar problems with our security state, when the system puts in so many loopholes to protect those abusing our rights as citizens, and many others around the world that our victims to our military adventurism, etc. "State Secrets Privilege", etc. are excuses to keep "appropriate channels" from working for whistleblowers like Daniel Ellsberg, Bradley Manning, Sibel Edmonds, and many others out there that try to bring to light to the public what they perceive is wrong going on behind closed doors.

In the case of Ellsberg, he lived in a different time, where even though he might have been put away, there was enough of a power structure that had teeth that perceived the merit of his efforts to correct the system, to find ways to allow him to help correct it and not be punished for doing so. Manning would like to think that there are those in our present system that would see his actions in the same capacity of what the past systems had seen Ellsberg's actions as being, and work with him to get things fixed.

In the case of Sibel Edmonds, she's tried to do the "appropriate channels" approach, and has been shut down on so many levels to the point that she's been pushed aside (with "State Secrets" privilege shutting down court proceedings, etc.), and many of what she's tried to bring to light has been ignored and not dealt with. Manning doesn't want to fall in to that trap either, from where I see it.

Today, we criminalize people like Manning, when they push the limits beyond what the current system allows for, which would appear the only way that insiders can proceed if they really want to bring on change. They have to be able to make the personal sacrifice that Manning has gone through.

Now we still need to hear the details of what Manning has done, to help us judge how many of his actions were really motivated by an interest for working for all of our interests, or if they were selfish and destructive to others at some point. I've not seen the latter yet, and from what I've seen so far, I believe him to be a man of principle. He now gets a chance at a trial to help validate those feelings for many of us. I only hope that the system will allow him room to help affect system change the way that Ellsberg was allowed to do many years ago. If it doesn't, it portends a future where perhaps there will be a lot more pain and personal destruction on both the sides of the top and bottom of our society as people get fed up with the current corrupt system and want to change it and seek other ways of doing so than the more constructive ways that Manning perhaps has tried to be engaged with. That's an ugly future that many might not like, and our leaders need to see that possibility before they judge and punish Manning too harshly if indeed he was more of a Danield Ellsberg than a Benedict Arnold.

A perpetual war and a perpetual security state have killed our democracy. Wake the fuck up.

We just squeeze our eyes shut and pretend that we can't wake up.

Really...it was the official channels that made those record and files classified in the first place!!!

If you actually believe that any IG would have done something, you're more naive then Manning!

Officials in this country have done practically nothing to stop this country on its road to hell. Even the few liberals we have in Congress are ineffective. They give speeches and the media treat them as curiosities, nothing more. If Sen. Sanders or Rep. Grayson had been given the information Manning had, they would have been promptly ignored. If Manning believed he had useful information, an organization like Wikileaks was his only hope to get that information to the public. It's unfortunate, but it's the truth.

For example, he could have contacted any member of Congress.

investigation is completed, it is forwarded to higher headquarters for action. That action must be in writing, and satisfy the IG. Failure to do that results in the investigation being forwarded further up the chain. If all that fails, Manning had the right to write a letter of inquiry to Congress. That is how the whistle blower act works. Sending 700k classified documents to a foreign entity was not one of his options.

... with a specific agenda to affect political change.

Great plan...

in and of itself does not excuse his actions, but it does explain a part of them.

Most likely he would not be around to write that letter to Congress.

documents to a foreign entity.

This information contained what? Proof of war crimes being covered up, correct? Why does that need to be kept hidden from everyone?

bit inconvenient for those that consider what he did to be heroic, but it *is* a fact. The only possible evidence he had was a video showing a helicopter attack. But the video was so heavily edited by Assange, (removing the fact that there were armed men at the scene) that it become virtually worthless for that purpose.

and not a hero. I wonder if he wasn't egged on by Assange and crew.

but wasn't he egged on by some hacker that he liked who then turned him in to the authorities?

He apparently spent a lot of time talking about his plans to release the information with a hacker named Adrian Lamo.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/06/04/bradley-manning-trial/2389791/

so I don't think being a criminal is always bad thing. Sometimes, being a criminal is a wonderful thing.

If you don't like Bradly Manning, and would love to see him harmed for what he has done, that is fine, but being a criminal doesn't really mean anything to me.

He's not facing the death penalty, and I don't think he should be. I don't think he should be physically harmed or spend the rest of his like in prison, but if he's guilty, I think he should certainly spend quite a bit of time in Leavenworth.

It's kidnapping. Some prisons are more harmful than others, due to inmate-on-inmate rapes, murders, etc.

Incarceration is harmful. Sometimes incredibly so. However, if we wish to maintain the illusions of order and authority, then we need to hurt some people. We harm the few so we can hopefully benefit the many. Volcanos have always demanded their virgins, metaphorically speaking, we just found a better way to do it.

A few might be locked up intentionally, but that is very rare.

Should we not lock people up or are you just saying that they deserve the "harm" that they receive as a result of their crimes?

I'm just saying punishment is harmful to the person being punished. I just think we should be honest about the nature of our justice system. We hurt the few to hopefully benefit the many, or we hurt the few to hopefully help keep a few others in power. All countries do this in order to maintain the illusions of order and authority. It's not inherently good or bad; it just is. Why not be honest about it?

so your wish will be satisfied -- unless he is pardoned or released early. The issue now is whether he should get longer than that. At least that is the way I understand it. He will be a middle aged man when he is released if he gets 20 years. The world will be very different then. And I believe that the attitude of many toward Manning will change over time as we learn more about why in the world we ever went into Iraq in the first place.

Why didn't we concentrate more on Afghanistan from which the 9/11 terrorists had launched their attacks? That in my view is the real scandal. Manning is a bit of a sideshow.

Some of what he released was actually quite helpful in allowing nations to understand that they were being victimized and that even our government officials recognized that. This apparently was true of Tunesia.

criminal is not necessarily a bad thing. I never said he was like MLK.

government does.

I don't mean this to be insulting or condescending.

Do you think that the state should have no secrets? If so, then there is no point to classifying anything. It seems to me that this would get a lot of people killed during times of war. In fact, there is at least some speculation that Manning's releases might have gotten some Afghan informants killed.

Which would eliminate the need for spying and secrets about spying among other crimes perpetrated when we involve our country in aggressive wars.

And anyway, I don't like how he's been treated in his captivity. It's not right. He hasn't been tried yet, and still he's psychologically tormented. Not cool. Not even legal.

By military law, the purpose of pre-trial confinement is to make sure the defendant is present for court martial and to be certain that he/she is not given the opportunity to commit more crimes. If what we've read about the conditions of his pre-trial confinement is true, he's likely to get triple credit for the time that he served under those conditions.

BTW, Nuremberg has never been successfully used as a defense for releasing classified information. There are other (legal) channels for exposing criminal wrongdoing.

When that's the case, as it was with the Iraq invasion, then all bets are off regarding "national security."

The fact that things are being done we don't agree with is just a fact of life.

Then you have no right to "national security" and the secrecy that comes with it. You take your chances, just like with any other murderous criminal...

n.t.

People that never served in MI have no clue the level of crimes that Manning committed. Many analysts I know want him court martialed, sentenced, and then lined up against a wall and shot. In the MI community, what Manning did is one of the three worse crimes you can commit.

For example, he could have handed the information over to any member of Congress.

he didn't sift through this stuff and find evidence of crimes, in which case, yes sending it to al franken or Bernie sanders would have made sense.

Why is it OK with so many here on DU, a supposedly pro-democracy, kinda centerish political web site, to condemn Manning for exposing evidence of war crimes?

He broke the law, so therefor must be punished, as if the law is always sacrosanct? What about the laws passed for the purpose of hiding crimes the law makers or their bosses are complicit in? Are those laws sacrosanct also? Many here seem to think so.

Interesting.

You will never see me argue that they should.

OK, let's find Bradley Manning guilty of his crimes. He clearly violated the UCMJ. Then sentence him to times served and a dishonorable discharge with no benefits. Then let's start arresting and prosecuting all the leaders of the Bush crime family who lied us into a war and approved secret prisons and torture of prisoners. Then all the black ops people, both active duty soldiers and CIA, etc. and paid mercenaries that participated in secret renditions, torture, and murder of civilians. use the UCMJ where applicable and the federal law where applicable. We can surely find gross violations of military and criminal laws. As explained so well by NaturalHigh, everybody who made it through basic training in any branch of the armed forces knows the importance of the prohibition against torture and murder of civilians.

Not the "time served" part, though.

You want to rationalize that he is guilty because he dared to speak to authority. The almighty authority that some (conservatives) worship.

It is important to some to deny he is a whistle-blower. Not that conservatives care, they hate all whistle-blowers. Again the threat to authoritarian rule they so long to have.

Protecting "classified information" is the rationalization used to hide atrocities. It should be against the law to classify information solely for the purpose of keeping it from the public.

I think that politically liberal people would agree that a true democracy depends on transparency.

While the authoritarian Cheney walks free, the conservatives want to lynch Manning.

and I believed (and still do) in the importance of protecting classified information.

and I agree

But from your experience you should know that a lot of information is "classified", not because it pertains to national defense, but because it is politically sensitive or embarassing.

Information that is classified because it is embarrassing to an official should be exposed and those that used the classification system for political purposes should be prosecuted. That is if you want to live in a democracy. If you like security, maybe fascism is for you.

"Through early morning fog I see
Visions of the things to be
The pains that are withheld for me
I realize and I can see

That fascism is painless
It brings on many changes
But I can't take or leave it if I please"

Authoritarianism doesnt work with democracy. You must choose.

We must maintain some perspective. In this world of evil, Pfc Manning isnt one of the evil. But he is a soft target for the bullies among us. No reflection on yourself.

rhetoric is duly noted.

Manning embarrassed some, Cheney tortured and killed.

The news media believe Manning is guilty as does the right wing. I wouldnt want to be in that company.

clandestine. What do you think happened to them once they were outed? Be careful, your naivete is showing.

and yet he walks free. He exposed the Plame CIA network, endangering maybe a hundred operatives, and he walks free. When he goes to jail, then come to me about Manning.

The difference is that Manning is of the 99% and therefore is expendable. Those that yield on their knees to the authoritarians should be ashamed, very ashamed.

You are choosing the wrong side in this class war.

2: Implying not only that the accused faces the DP, when he does not, but that the poster you are replying to supports this non-existent possibility.

3. The non-existent possibility is just so very, very bad.

dont like challenges to our authoritarian leaders.

I dont for a minute think that our government will give him the death penality. But I think that some here hate his actions that they would be a party of a good old fashion lynching. To the conservative there is nothing worse that those that dare speak out against the authoritarian rulers.

I say there is a double standard. The 1%, like Cheney and his gang, can kill a hundred thousand and go free. But if Pfc Manning exposes the lies of our government, he must be dealt with harshly. Put him in a cell naked for 24 hours a day and blare loud music at him.

I choose Mannings side. Do you choose Cheney's side?

but just because the wall street assholes got away with robbery doesn't mean the guy who robs my local bank should as well. while we disagree on manning, we do agree cheney should have gotten his. but if it is wrong for cheney to reveal classified information, it is wrong for manning to have done so as well.

I stand with the 99%.

I'd like to see a link to where 99% of Americans believe that what Manning did is okay? Thanks in advance.

Actually, to be serious, I haven't seen any polls at all about how people feel about Manning. I kind of doubt that "hero" is the consensus, though.

Democrats = Republicans. Manning is being unfairly persecuted. Assange couldn't have committed sexual assault (cuz he said so). A less than "liberal" appointment to the president's cabinet = treason. And OWS is a real "movement".

alter. We are in a class war. Sooner or later you will have to pick a side.

ruling elite, let me warn you. They will chew you up and spit you out.

You're either with us or against us.

We are in a class war where the 1% has all the material resources. They can divide the 99% into factions that will fight among themselves. It's so much easier to conquer by dividing. There are those that are so busy hating the left, for some unbelievable reason or other, they dont realize or care that the 1% is stealing their wallet. There are others among us that have been brought up to love authoritarianism. "I go with the big bully. He will take care of me." Fools.

If a bully is picking on someone and you do nothing, doesnt that mean you are on the bullies side?

Disingenuous bullshit.

Disagreeing with you is not synonymous with "hating the left."

What utter nonsense.

It has nothing to do with "disagreeing with me". They dont try to hide it. My point is that should be working together.

Links?

Again, I think your premise is disingenuous.

thank God the first amendment lets you have that right.

people in this thread. But thanks for playing the tried and true, RW talking points gambit. Fail.

I would never label him as evil. In fact, I believe that very few people are truly evil.

I'm not sure if it was more criminal or stupid.

I think that Cheney is most likely a sociopath. Some sociopaths do a lot of evil things, but they don't recognize them as evil.

I know I'll get roasted over this, but evil is a theological issue to me. I believe that truly evil people know that they are doing evil and enjoy doing evil. Most of the evil in the world, in my opinion, is done by people who don't recognize the evil or by people who actually think they are doing good.

Just my opinion, and like I said, I'm sure I'll be flamed for it.

Either way, I'm not going to get dragged further into this discussion. It's a very deep, nuanced personal opinion that I have of the rarity of truly evil people. The discussion has been very contentious even with my wife at times, and I have no intention of going through a flame war on the subject on an internet message board.

Cheney broke the law and got away with, therefore so should Manning.

one for the 99%. You are willing to throw Manning to the dungeon and let Cheney and his 1% friends walk.

We are at war. You are choosing the wrong side.

fwiw - I agree cheney should have been prosecuted for that. in fact his subordinate was and then pardoned by shrub. that has nothing to do with mannings guilt or innocence. I agree with you there is a double standard in that manning will probably get no pardon.

nt

You are ok if the 1% cuts Social Security and Medicare. You are ok if the 1% buys our elections. I want whatever your drinking.

and while I agree with your premises, I do not accept the conclusion that laws should be suspended for one because they were ignored in the case of another.

Manning by the 1% for exposing what's behind the curtain. You are choosing the side of the 1%.

Cheney made millions from the deaths of possibly one hundred thousand innocent Iraqis. Manning was trying to expose the hypocrisy of our government. I cant fault Manning while Cheney walks free a wealthy man.

I want law and order. But punishing Manning is a farce. But if you can sleep better at night then put him in a cell and torture him.

cheney walking the streets is a farce; that does not justify giving manning a walk - another farce.

we are back to the two wrongs make a right fallacy.