Officers of the United States Government should be on trial -- not PFC Bradley Manning.

[Octafish]

The United States should be in the dock, not Bradley Manning

The whistleblower has allowed us to scrutinise the hidden realities of US power

OWEN JONES
The Independent (UK), Sunday 2 June 2013

It has launched illegal and unjust wars with catastrophic human consequences; it has helped overthrow democratically elected governments; it arms and backs some of the most brutal dictatorships on the face of the earth; and it has a track record of supporting terrorist organisations. Even many of its ardent supporters admit that the US foreign policy elite has a somewhat chequered history.

SNIP...

Manning now begins a military trial, charged with a capital offence, though the prosecution promise not to seek the death penalty, leaving him facing 20 years in prison. As two US champions of the First Amendment on free speech, Floyd Abrams and Yochai Benkler, have written: “If successful, the prosecution will establish a chilling precedent: national security leaks may subject the leakers to a capital prosecution or at least life imprisonment.”

SNIP...

No wonder powerful interests in the US want to make an example of Manning. Among the videos he released was an Apache helicopter conducting a bombing raid that killed Iraqi civilians and a Reuters journalist. “The most alarming aspect of the video to me was the seemingly delightful bloodlust they appeared to have,” Manning has said, appalled by the lack of “value for human life” shown by the pilots’ descriptions of “dead bastards”. Here was the “on-the-ground reality” of both the Iraq and Afghan wars, he claimed.

The truth is Manning has done a great service, both to the American people and to the world as a whole. US foreign policy depends on secrecy, not simply because of fear of US enemies, but because the reality would often horrify the American people.

CONTINUED...

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-united-states-should-be-in-the-dock-not-bradley-manning-8641164.html

So. Revealing crime is a crime. Hello, 1984!

[SidDithers]

1. Manning isn't a whistleblower...

he stole hundreds of thousands of documents, and released them to Wikileaks without knowing what was in them.

That's not whistleblowing. That's a data dump.

Sid

[Octafish]

3. Really? That's a most, eh, conservative take on it.

Here's how Democrats -- the liberals of my world -- see it:

Bradley Manning Trial: After 3 Years, Army Whistleblower Begins Court-Martial Shrouded in Secrecy

Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow.org, June 3, 2013

More than three years after he was arrested, Army whistleblower Bradley Manning goes on trial today accused of being behind the biggest leak of classified information in U.S. history. Manning faces life in prison for disclosing a trove of U.S. cables and government documents to the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks. On Saturday, hundreds of Manning supporters rallied outside the barracks at Fort Meade, Maryland, where the trial will be held. We’re joined by two guests: Firedoglake reporter Kevin Gosztola, who is at Ft. Meade covering the trial, and attorney Chase Madar, author of "The Passion of Bradley Manning."

SNIP...

AMY GOODMAN: Today marks the first day of the military trial of Private Bradley Manning, accused of disclosing a trove of U.S. cables and government documents to the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks in the largest leak of state secrets in U.S. history. Bradley Manning is 25 years old. He has already pled guilty to misusing classified material he felt, quote, "should become public," but has denied the top charge of aiding the enemy. For much of the last three years since his arrest, Bradley Manning has been kept in harsh military detention, including many months in solitary confinement, prompting the U.N.’s top torture expert to criticize the U.S. for "cruel and degrading" treatment. He could face life in prison, possibly the death penalty.

On Saturday, hundreds of protesters gathered outside the barracks in Fort Meade, Maryland, where the trial will be held, to show their support for Manning. Protesters included Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Bradley was an extraordinary American who went on record and acted on his awareness that it was wrong for us to be killing foreigners. He was not doing it only for American citizens, although—I’ll come back to that in a moment—I think he saved American lives, but he was concerned that the people of the world should be informed of the way, as he put it, the First World, or the West, he said, treats the Third World. And, of course, these Europeans are not in the Third World, but they do have an interest in the fact that America has been asking for—acting for a long time, and above all, in the last decade, as if the lives of foreigners meant nothing.

CONTINUED...

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/6/3/bradley_manning_trial_after_3_years

Almost forgot: Do you have a link or source for where democrats or liberals call what Manning did a "data dump," siddithers?

[SidDithers]

14. Yup. Link is right here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022944450#post1

You're not claiming that Manning knew the contents of what he was dumping, are you? Even Manning has said he didn't read all of them.

Sid

[Octafish]

34. Are you trying to damage the server?

Big deal. That links back to your post.

Self-reinforcing feedback loops are not for amateurs, siddithers.

[SidDithers]

46. 'Cause you never link to your own posts, octafish...

Sid

[Octafish]

90. Big difference is I post useful information that adds to what we know about the gangsters.

You just say the War Party and the BFEE are figments of my imagination, siddithers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2075920

You never show that, though.

[Occulus]

131. Octafish has more credibility here than you do, Sid. By a LOT.

Jury: this is not a personal attack. What I have to say here can be verified, and quickly, just by scanning a few of each one's posts. The following is fact supported by years' worth of posts, and every word of what follows is the truth, not as I see it, but as it is there to be seen by all.

Sorry. But that's just the truth. You haven't ever done a fraction of a sliver of the work Octafish has (hell, I've sometimes seen Rolling Stone writers do less work digging things up for a multiple-page feature item than Octafish does for some posts here), you have never once posted anything remotely as well-sourced or as vital as Octafish has, and you are, comparing the body of your "work" to theirs, a great deal less of an asset to this site than Octafish is. That's actually measurable, Sid. It's something any single one of us can easily see, plain as day, by even the most cursory and fleeting of glances. It's not a statement of opinion. You just haven't done or posted anything remotely close to the same amount of work, with everything that the word "work" implies. I don't think I've ever seen you write even one post that comes close in all the years you have been here.

I've been here a long time, Sid, as have the both of you, and as a point of indisputable fact supported by the sum of both of your posting histories from the opening day of DU's first iteration to the time you read this, Octafish is several orders of magnitude a greater, more thorough, more interesting, and more important resource to Democratic Underground than you ever have been or ever will be.

[randome]

133. How is that NOT a personal attack?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[SidDithers]

137. Well, you know, there was a preface...

Sid

[dionysus]

256. you just can't compare with that anti vax woo machine Sid...

[Octafish]

289. PROPAGANDA 101: Labels are powerful things.

And Corporate McPravda owns the airwaves.



And Corporate Tee Vee is still where most Americans get most of their information, including their ideas about these two statues.

Wonder what people would think were they to learn from the tee vee what pater and fils have really done with their power?

The Propaganda System That Has Helped Create a Permanent Overclass Is Over a Century in the Making

Pulling back the curtain on how intent the wealthiest Americans have been on establishing a propaganda tool to subvert democracy.

Wednesday, 17 April 2013 00:00
By Andrew Gavin Marshall, AlterNet | News Analysis

Where there is the possibility of democracy, there is the inevitability of elite insecurity. All through its history, democracy has been under a sustained attack by elite interests, political, economic, and cultural. There is a simple reason for this: democracy – as in true democracy – places power with people. In such circumstances, the few who hold power become threatened. With technological changes in modern history, with literacy and education, mass communication, organization and activism, elites have had to react to the changing nature of society – locally and globally.

From the late 19th century on, the “threats” to elite interests from the possibility of true democracy mobilized institutions, ideologies, and individuals in support of power. What began was a massive social engineering project with one objective: control. Through educational institutions, the social sciences, philanthropic foundations, public relations and advertising agencies, corporations, banks, and states, powerful interests sought to reform and protect their power from the potential of popular democracy.

SNIP...

The development of psychology, psychoanalysis, and other disciplines increasingly portrayed the “public” and the population as irrational beings incapable of making their own decisions. The premise was simple: if the population was driven by dangerous, irrational emotions, they needed to be kept out of power and ruled over by those who were driven by reason and rationality, naturally, those who were already in power.

The Princeton Radio Project, which began in the 1930s with Rockefeller Foundation funding, brought together many psychologists, social scientists, and “experts” armed with an interest in social control, mass communication, and propaganda. The Princeton Radio Project had a profound influence upon the development of a modern "democratic propaganda" in the United States and elsewhere in the industrialized world. It helped in establishing and nurturing the ideas, institutions, and individuals who would come to shape America’s “democratic propaganda” throughout the Cold War, a program fostered between the private corporations which own the media, advertising, marketing, and public relations industries, and the state itself.

CONTINUED...

http://truth-out.org/news/item/15784-the-propaganda-system-that-has-helped-create-a-permanent-overclass-is-over-a-century-in-the-making

Thankfully, to help spread light when the protectors of the First Amendment won't, Maria Galardin's TUC (Time of Useful Consciousness) Radio. The podcast helps explain how we got here and what we need to do to move forward, starting with putting the "Public" into Airwaves again:

Alex Carey: Corporations and Propaganda
The Attack on Democracy

The 20th century, said Carey, is marked by three historic developments: the growth of democracy via the expansion of the franchise, the growth of corporations, and the growth of propaganda to protect corporations from democracy. Carey wrote that the people of the US have been subjected to an unparalleled, expensive, 3/4 century long propaganda effort designed to expand corporate rights by undermining democracy and destroying the unions. And, in his manuscript, unpublished during his life time, he described that history, going back to World War I and ending with the Reagan era. Carey covers the little known role of the US Chamber of Commerce in the McCarthy witch hunts of post WWII and shows how the continued campaign against "Big Government" plays an important role in bringing Reagan to power.

John Pilger called Carey "a second Orwell", Noam Chomsky dedicated his book, Manufacturing Consent, to him. And even though TUC Radio runs our documentary based on Carey's manuscript at least every two years and draws a huge response each time, Alex Carey is still unknown.

Given today's spotlight on corporations that may change. It is not only the Occupy movement that inspired me to present this program again at this time. By an amazing historic coincidence Bill Moyers and Charlie Cray of Greenpeace have just added the missing chapter to Carey's analysis. Carey's manuscript ends in 1988 when he committed suicide. Moyers and Cray begin with 1971 and bring the corporate propaganda project up to date.

This is a fairly complex production with many voices, historic sound clips, and source material. The program has been used by writers and students of history and propaganda. Alex Carey: Taking the Risk out of Democracy, Corporate Propaganda VS Freedom and Liberty with a foreword by Noam Chomsky was published by the University of Illinois Press in 1995.

SOURCE: http://tucradio.org/new.html

If you find a moment, here's the first part (scroll down at the link for the second part) on Carey.

http://tucradio.org/AlexCarey_ONE.mp3

It's important for there to be more than a handful of companies providing "news." Democracy depends on it.

MORE PROPAGANDA 101: Be the FIRST to lie. Afterward, even when told the truth, it's much harder to change a person's mind -- once it's gotten made.

One case in point: Bradley Manning. One forgotten by most of America, including those charged with Justice, military and otherwise, is that of Col. Westhusing.



Do you remember him, Dionysus?

[sabrina 1]

198. The truth is a personal attack? I don't think so.

[stevenleser]

134. What you just posted is nonsense. Everyone here is subject to being asked for links with backup.

Everyone here is capable of being wrong on any post. Whether you think someone is a great asset to DU or not makes no difference to whether they are correct about any assertion.

[sabrina 1]

201. Occulus' post was accurate.

[SidDithers]

136. ...

If you replace "work" with "made up shit", then maybe your bloviation would be accurate.

I've said this to others, but it seems applicable here. It's hard for me to describe just how little I care about your opinion of my contribution to DU.



Sid

[Occulus]

149. I'm hurt

You just leave me sitting on the curb, staring sadly at the oggan and wondering what went wrong with us and when, with only the coldly moaning wind of my heart's winter evening for company, but you pay attention to other people so much you go to the effort of making sure you're noticed loudly trying to get their threads shut down after the hosts decide to leave them up.

Why don't you pay attention to me like that, Sid? Why?

You never loved me!



Whatever. I've yet to see Octafish "make up" anything even one time in all these years and all their articles are usually fairly well supported by links to further information from many and varied sources; "Better Believe It" Octafish is definitively not. I do disagree with conclusions now and then, but we're all free to do that; I've yet to see any indication of a hidden agenda on this one's part, though, and I've never once gotten the sense I'm being manipulated when I read one of their articles. I nearly believe you're reading someone else's posts and attributing them to Octafish by mistake, because you are not describing anything like the writings by the one I read on this site.

I truly don't get it this time, Sid. When I think of people who might deserve to be discredited in your pithy, truth-dithering manner here on DU for the, in this case, fondly imagined sin of posting "made up shit", Octafish has never been on the list, never even close. I can think of several others, deserving proto-trolls all, who do deserve your special accolades off the top of my head, but.... no. And the years' worth of posts consistent with everything I've said is there for anyone to search through and see for themselves.

What are you thinking, Sid? What could possibly be the upside of trying discredit someone with no ammunition to use against them, and against someone with such a long and consistent history of valuable contribution to this site behind them at that?

[sabrina 1]

197. Of course you don't, but a whole lot of other people, do. Occulus, a great DUer like Octafish

is someone worth coming here to read. They are what make DU worth the time.

[SidDithers]

224. How's that RFK jr homework coming...

You figure out that your "great DUer", like RFK jr, is dead wrong on vaccines yet?

Sid

[sabrina 1]

265. So far, due to the fact that RFK Jr has credibility, as opposed to his few detractors, and I

believe I explained this to you before, I am going with RFK. I never accept information, without thoroughly researching it, from people with no credibility.

No, to answer your question, I have not had time to do the necessary research, it will take some time, but until I do I will go with the man who has established his reputation as a Democrat with excellent credibility.

It is possible he is wrong on this issue, people are not always right, but as I said, credibility goes a long way to the influence someone is going to have when they speak about an important issue.

Eg, debating a topic like an adult rather than with obvious biases, adds a great deal to someone's credibility. People who seek to silence those who disagree with them eg, lose all credibility to the point that even if they are right once in a while, no one is going to believe them. Personally attacking people, attempting to run them off political forums, especially democrats, will diminish someone's credibility to the point where people will ignore them completely.

But that is just basic logic. The most effective people, people like (since we are on DU as we discuss this issue) Octafish eg, and Occulus, do have that kind of credibility here because they have earned it. That's not to say they are always right, but they do not spend time policing DU eg, which as you know, appears to be all some people do.

When I have the time to look into this topic and to determine in my own opinion whether RFK Jr is right or wrong, I will let you know. You don't have to keep reminding me btw, although I'm sure you will, lol, I have an excellent memory when it comes to important things, just not enough time to do all I would like to do.

So don't worry, I am not concerned about finding out someone I respect might be wrong once in a while. It's human but when their heart is in the right place, as we know in the case of RFK Jr, we don't generally hold an occasional error in judgement against them. We are Democrats after all.

[SidDithers]

278. "debating a topic like an adult rather than with obvious biases...

adds a great deal to someone's credibility."


So, RFK Jr. likening childhood vaccination programs to "Nazi death camps", and calling one of the leading physicians in the US, an infectious disease expert and researcher whose rotovirus vaccine saves thousands of lives every day, a "bi-ostitute" (rhymes with prostitute), is debating a topic like an adult?

Yeah, I can see how you'd be confused about RFK Jr's credibility.

Sid

[Octafish]

267. It's like an automatic reaction.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2418100

[backwoodsbob]

188. even though we have had our disputes in the past

I would trust Sid over 99% of the people on this board.

[Number23]

202. + a million. And it would be a perfect 100% over the people high fiving that personal attack on him

[sabrina 1]

195. I couldn't agree more, and I have no doubt at all that a majority of people here

agree. People actually come here to read people like Octafish. The opposite is true of those who cannot hide their disdain of this country's progressive democrats.

[dionysus]

255. yup, their anti vax woo, as well as constant campaigning against Dems, makes DU special...

[Octafish]

275. Like when you called a liberal constitutional scholar a douchebag?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002797594

[dionysus]

286. correction: greenwald is a libertarian douchebag

[Octafish]

290. Either way, that is Labeling, a technique of propaganda.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1224071&mesg_id=1383544

[dionysus]

323. i call it an apt description

good day

[Octafish]

329. Call it what you want, you're still wrong. Greenwald is correct on Manning vs. the Warmongers

Here's an example why:

[font color="red"][font size="3"]Bradley Manning: a tale of liberty lost in America

The US does nothing to punish those guilty of war crimes or Wall Street fraud, yet demonises the whistleblower[/font size][/font color]

Glenn Greenwald
The Guardian, Friday 30 November 2012

EXCERPT...

Whatever one thinks of Manning's alleged acts, he appears the classic whistleblower. This information could have been sold for substantial sums to a foreign government or a terror group. Instead he apparently knowingly risked his liberty to show them to the world because – he said when he believed he was speaking in private – he wanted to trigger "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms".

Compare this aggressive prosecution of Manning to the Obama administration's vigorous efforts to shield Bush-era war crimes and massive Wall Street fraud from all forms of legal accountability. Not a single perpetrator of those genuine crimes has faced court under Obama, a comparison that reflects the priorities and values of US justice.

Then there's the behaviour of Obama's loyalists. Ever since I first reported the conditions of Manning's detention in December 2010, many of them not only cheered that abuse but grotesquely ridiculed concerns about it. Joy-Ann Reid, a former Obama press aide and now a contributor on the progressive network MSNBC, spouted sadistic mockery in response to the report: "Bradley Manning has no pillow?????" With that, she echoed one of the most extreme rightwing websites, RedState, which identically mocked the report: "Give Bradley Manning his pillow and blankie back."

As usual, the US establishment journalists have enabled the government every step of the way. Despite holding themselves out as adversarial watchdogs, nothing provokes their animosity more than someone who effectively challenges government actions.

SNIP...

But the CNN host was completely uninterested in the dangerous acts of her own government. Instead she repeatedly tried to get Assange to condemn the press policies of Ecuador, a tiny country that – quite unlike the US – exerts no influence beyond its borders. To the mavens of the US watchdog press, Assange and Manning are enemies to be scorned because they did the job that the US press corps refuses to do: namely, bringing transparency to the bad acts of the US government and its allies around the world.

CONTINUED...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/30/bradley-manning-liberty-lost-america

It's clear where Greenwald stands when it comes to democracy. Which brings up my point: Do you have anything to add about the relative guilt of Bradley Manning versus those officers in government who lied America into war?

[leveymg]

234. Sid - Ellsberg didn't have time to read all the Pentagon Papers, either. Your argument is trash.

Is that your strongest argument? Didn't even bother to research the context and closest historical parallel, did you? By your misinformed test, Daniel Ellsberg isn't a whistleblower, either, right Sid?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/19/wikileaks.ellsberg.manning/index.html
Ellsberg was trusted to go through top-level military communications from Vietnam and other sensitive documents and decide what to give to his boss, who would advise McNamara who in turn would advise the president.

His first week, Ellsberg faced a stack of papers nearly 12 feet tall, so he began asking to see only "hot stuff," or top-secret documents. That cut his workload down to two stacks a day, each 2 feet tall.

When Ellsberg read the first batch of WikiLeaks' documents about the Afghanistan War, which were largely field reports that were extremely low level but still technically secret intelligence, he was shocked.

"I was surprised about what there was to learn because I didn't even have time to look at that stuff," he said.

He became engrossed in the Afghanistan documents, and the ones released later on the Iraq War. But it was the publication of a trove of diplomatic cables in December that startled him.

Ellsberg has addressed this issue. He says he read all the Top Secret documents he released. But, the Pentagon Papers that were eventually released were actually a much larger volume of documents of lower classified documents, Secret and Confidential. The difference, as Ellsberg points out, is that Manning never had access to Top Secret documents that might actually be damaging. Also, Manning tried to release them first through the NYT and WaPo, but those stalwarts of the establishment press wouldn't touch them. So, he released them to Wikileaks, which vetted them through a set of newspapers. Manning could have dumped the data on the internet, but didn't, as Ellsberg points out in this interview: http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/03/20/pentagon-papers-whistleblower-daniel-ellsberg-bradley-manning-one-person-who-acted-on-crimes-he-uncovered/

GOSZTOLA: But, you think that a problem was created by the fact that Manning did not read all the US State Embassy cables?

ELLSBERG: I think he did do something that was problematic and I want to make this point. He did put out a lot of State Department cables that he hadn’t had time to read. I, at the time, would not have done that. I would not have put out something I had not read. I had read every page of the 7,000-top secret pages. People often make that point in distinguishing between us. But, in terms of the three years of experience, I think the gamble that we’ve had since he put it out was very well justified.

He obviously figured there were many more crimes that he had not had time to read in that material. From what we had seen, there was very little that was more than embarrassing to the government. Now, he could have been wrong about that and that’s why I wouldn’t have done it at the time, but now that the experiment has been done. Three years have passed. There is not one example that the government has given of someone actually suffering harm or a policy suffering actual harm from those revelations. On the contrary, the Tunisia cables would probably have never been published by the New York Times.

Manning is described as having dumped 250,000 cables on to the web that he hadn’t read. That again is the opposite of the truth. He could just as well have put them on the internet instead of what he did. He tried to give them to the New York Times or the Washington Post. They weren’t interested or didn’t show immediate interest. He then gave them to WikiLeaks, which I could not have done 40 years ago. The internet did not exist. WikiLeaks, in turn, gave them to newspapers, which had experienced staff to work with and had experience in dealing with this material and whose judgment as to what the public ought to be told—which is their job—is much more reliable for democracy than the judgment of executive officials on the whole. Even though mistakes can be made by either group, I would much rather trust the judgment of newspapers than people in the Executive Branch, whose job is to keep secrets and deceive the public to keep a war going.

When he gave the information to WikiLeaks and they in turn gave it to a number of other newspapers, after six months, only about 2% material had been released. That is the opposite of indiscriminate. In the end, after six months or so, the material did mistakenly become available again with no harmful results.

So, you're wrong about it being a document dump, too, Sid.

[sabrina 1]

270. Excellent post and everyone knows that the nonsensical claim that 'he didn't read

everything' is nonsense and a talking point intended to distract from the issues.

[SidDithers]

272. Wait...

Ellsberg says:

ELLSBERG: I think he did do something that was problematic and I want to make this point. He did put out a lot of State Department cables that he hadn’t had time to read. I, at the time, would not have done that. I would not have put out something I had not read. I had read every page of the 7,000-top secret pages. People often make that point in distinguishing between us. But, in terms of the three years of experience, I think the gamble that we’ve had since he put it out was very well justified.

He obviously figured there were many more crimes that he had not had time to read in that material. From what we had seen, there was very little that was more than embarrassing to the government. Now, he could have been wrong about that and that’s why I wouldn’t have done it at the time, but now that the experiment has been done. Three years have passed. There is not one example that the government has given of someone actually suffering harm or a policy suffering actual harm from those revelations. On the contrary, the Tunisia cables would probably have never been published by the New York Times.

That's not Ellsberg saying it wasn't a data dump. That's Ellsberg saying that it was a data dump that, in the end, was OK because it didn't get anyone harmed.

But Manning didn't know that at the time. Manning chose to release hundreds of thousands of cables without knowing what was in them. Even Ellsberg says he wouldn't have done that.

Sid

[leveymg]

294. Sid, Ellsberg actually says the term "data dump" . . ." is the opposite of the truth."

Last edited Wed Jun 5, 2013, 02:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Ellsberg says his circumstances were somewhat different, his having read all the top-secret documents given to him from the Brookings copy. But, as he admits, his decision to not read the more voluminous less classified documents may have been a mistake, as he may have missed some of the more important information.

In the end, most of the less classified materials were also released. The original Pentagon Papers published omitted one-third of the 48 volumes that is now available from the National Archives as of the declassification in 2011.

Ellsberg and Manning both know what are typically in State Dept. Cables, and so now does anyone who cares to read some of them. They're country reports and assessments, rather like reading the back pages of a longish NYT article, not operational plans for military or intelligence operations. Both made judgment calls based upon what they understood to be the risks versus the potential benefits. Ellsberg's decision was somewhat better informed, but he agrees what Manning did was whistle-blowing and that it was justified by the circumstances. I'd say, without completely agreeing with either, that Daniel Ellsberg not Sid Dithers is an authority on the subject.

[Dragonfli]

15. He can't answer because - He's the one

who likes all our pretty songs

and he likes to sing along, and he likes to shoot his guns...
but he don't know what it means....

[pnwmom]

109. Releasing thousands of diplomatic cables crossed the line,

in my opinion.

[Swagman]

228. and that's just your opinion.

we haven't reached the stage yet- although it may come- when guilt is established by yours or my opinions.

[pnwmom]

252. Manning's too, since he's been willing to plead guilty on that. n/t

[leveymg]

241. These diplomatic cables should have been declassified

There's nothing that I've seen in those cables that does any harm other than they show how public statements by State Dept. and foreign officials contradict what they really knew and were doing.

Disclosure is embarrassing, but not damaging to national security. These types of cables should be automatically declassified every five years or so. IMHO.

[pnwmom]

251. The cables contained the unredacted names of innocent people

who were working as our allies behind the scenes in countries where their lives were at risk.

[leveymg]

295. I believe the names were of corrupt Afghan officials

who have been sabotaging our Democracy & Governance programs in that country. Also, the Cables were released by Wikileaks after having been vetted by several newspapers to redact names. While the accusation of compromise of informants was made in 2010, there have been no verified instances of anyone harmed as a result.

[pnwmom]

297. There were a lot more names that that in the thousands of cables. n/t

[leveymg]

298. Show me an instance where someone was harmed.

The Cables were vetted by the staffs of several reputable newspapers.

[pnwmom]

303. 251,000 cables were released UNVETTED and unredacted.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/02/julian-assange-arrest-australia-wikileaks


Julian Assange could face prosecution in Australia after publishing sensitive information about government officials amongst the 251,000 unredacted cables released this week.

SNIP

Australia's attorney general, Robert McClelland, confirmed in a statement on Friday that the new cable release identified at least one individual within the country's intelligence service. He added it is a criminal offence in the country to publish any information which could lead to the identification of an intelligence officer.

SNIP

The newly published archive contains more than 1,000 cables identifying individual activists; several thousand labelled with a tag used by the US to mark sources it believes could be placed in danger; and more than 150 specifically mentioning whistleblowers.

The cables also contain references to people persecuted by their governments, victims of sex offences, and locations of sensitive government installations and infrastructure.

[leveymg]

314. But, not a single act of persecution as a result of a quarter million unvetted docs in 3 yrs?

How significant could the harm actually be? If there had been a victim resulting from the release, the charging document against Manning surely would have referenced it.

[pnwmom]

316. Much of the case is being withheld for security reasons, so I wouldn't expect

to find those details in a charging document.

Any further public naming of names could put OTHER people at risk.

But here's an early example:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/15/wikileaks-named-ethiopian-reporter-flees

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said reporter Argaw Ashine fled at the weekend after being interrogated over the identity of a government source mentioned in a leaked 2009 US cable. Argaw was the local correspondent for Kenya's Nation Media Group.

The cable said Argaw was told by an unnamed source that the government would target six journalists from a newspaper seen as critical of the government. That paper closed later that year after citing harassment and intimidation.

Joel Simon, the New York-based CPJ's executive director, said: "The threat we sought to avert through redactions of initial WikiLeaks cables has now become real. A citation in one of these cables can easily provide repressive governments with the perfect opportunity to persecute or punish journalists and activists.

"WikiLeaks must take responsibility for its actions and do whatever it can to reduce the risk to journalists named in its cables. It must put in place systems to ensure that such disclosures do not reoccur."

[leveymg]

319. That's a little circular. Secrets to protect secrets, etc. Are you speculating, or is that based in

some actual knowledge or specific incident you might allude to here?

[pnwmom]

320. I just amended the previous post to give an example. And then I found this one:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/leaked-cables-spark-witch-hunt-for-chinese-rats/article594194/

Some of China’s top academics and human rights activists are being attacked as “rats” and “spies” after their names were revealed as U.S. Embassy sources in the unredacted WikiLeaks cables that have now been posted online.

The release of the previously protected names has sparked an online witch-hunt by Chinese nationalist groups, with some advocating violence against those now known to have met with U.S. Embassy staff. “When the time comes, they should be arrested and killed,” reads one typical posting on a prominent neo-Maoist website.

The repercussions could indeed be dire in some circumstances, particularly for Tibetan and Uighur activists exposed as having passed information to Washington. In other cases – including some Communist Party officials named as “protected” or “strictly protected” sources – the fallout is more likely to be embarrassment or perhaps lost promotions.

Also named are some of China’s most outspoken intellectuals, including some known for pushing reform of the country’s authoritarian political system. They may now see themselves painted as “American agents,” their arguments for change shoved further to the margins.

[leveymg]

321. As someone who's prepared hundreds of Ethiopian asylum claims, I am not in the least

surprised by Mr. Ashine's account. But, again, his head is still attached to the rest of him, and I wish them both further good fortune.

Same goes for Mainland China asylum claims.

Got anything else?

[pnwmom]

322. So since he escaped his country alive, he wasn't really harmed then?

What about the family he had to leave? Do you think he and his family think the completely unnecessary and indiscriminate data dump of 250,000 cables, some containing information about him, was justified?

I have no idea what you mean by "same goes for Mainland China asylum claims."

[Maedhros]

30. The bottom line is:

Are we better off now that Manning released this information, or would we be better off if it all had been kept secret?

[Octafish]

41. It depends on whether you want to live in a democracy or not.

On the one hand, Manning tried to stop war crimes; on the other, Bush tried to cover them up.

When matters of war and peace are decided in secret, then it's not a democracy.

In one example, not directly related to Manning, the crew who ripped off the banks should pay in restitution of every penny. Yet, they've gotten away scot-free.

Here's why:

Know your BFEE: Spawn of Wall Street and the Third Reich

Adm. Gene Laroque warned us about the Secret Government.

As an old man who's seen the nation lied into wars by various presidents, I got to go with Secret Government is un-American.

[nineteen50]

42. Ignorance is bliss?

[stevenleser]

135. I think there is no question we would be better off if it had not been released. If Manning had

confined his release to the 5 or so documents that may indicate some sort of wrongdoing, it would be the opposite.

What Manning did undermined the entire global institution of diplomacy.

[JDPriestly]

153. I did not read all the Wikileaks, but I feel better off that he released them.

We have the First Amendment to protect our right to free speech. But just how meaningful is that if we don't have the information to inform our "free speech"? I just don't understand how you can have free speech without the maximum possible free information.

While some of the Wikileaks documents might have been better kept secret, while for some of them the government's classification was justified, most of them should not have been classified in the first place.

In fact, no one would have been interested in the drivel from the embassies to HQ or whatever they were had they been available to everyone in the first place.

And, as for those few documents that the government can accurately claim should have been kept secret, one has to ask why in the world they were disseminated to so many people including Manning who had no need to see them.

In WWII, our government was very good at keeping secrets. The first rule, if you read the books on this, was to keep the scope of people having access to secrets as narrow as possible.

If there was any serious security breach, I blame the government for it, not Manning. Why in the world did they disseminate anything all that important to so many people. I don't think Manning was all that high-level.

The fault is not with Manning but with his superiors. That is my view. They should be the ones facing court-martial. Not Manning. They should be thanking Manning for pointing out the weaknesses in their system.

And they should be narrowing the categories of items that they classify.

[Occulus]

155. This Option B is sponsored by Leo Strauss and the University of Chicago.

[sabrina 1]

204. We are better off, although it may take a while for this country to acknowledge that.

It took a while to give credit to Ellsberg for what he did. History has already recorded the value of his courageous actions. We are worse off today and may have to wait a while longer, as we do not have a free press and the current SC would not do what the SC did back then, but there is no doubt that WE are better off since knowledge can never be bad for the people. What we learned, those who cared enough to actually read what was revealed, know that we cannot trust our government and that means something must be done about that.

The Government is not better off. The record now shows some of what they were doing in our name. If in the end this country wants to remain a democracy, and that is the critical question, do we want that, then Mannings revelations make us far better off.

However, at the moment in this dark period of our history, it doesn't seem as though we do like democracy very much. However, in the end, I think the people will want to preserve democracy over what Bush et al have created and some democrats appear to agree with.

[sabrina 1]

164. I'll take the most famous and most credible Whistle Blower's word on that. Daniel

Ellsberg has called Manning the 'ultimate Whistle Blower'. His credibility is impeccable, except of course to supporters of Bush's illegal wars.

Manning is a hero, as history will record. Ellsberg was also called a lot of names but the SC Court ruling vindicated the NYT, also a target back then for publishing information the SC determined the public had a right to know.

I'm very happy to be on the right side of history along with a majority of the people of the world. Manning is the kind of person who makes the US look good to the rest of the world.

Ellsberg's 'data dump' made him a hero. Manning was more discerning with what he released, according to Ellsberg. He chose only classified material despite having access to top secret data.

[backwoodsbob]

193. wow

so anyone who has a problem with Manning dumping 50 years of diplomatic cables that he didn't even read is now a Bush supporter?

This site and every other site like it on both sides is becoming a parody of politics

[sabrina 1]

194. Anyone who objects to a whistle blower exposing war crimes committed during

Bush's wars, is supporting the war criminals. Seems simple enough to me.

[backwoodsbob]

196. but he didnt just whistle blow did he

he dumped 100's of thousands of documents...most of which he admits he didn't even read

[AnalystInParadise]

217. Manning is not a whistle blower

but you know that, the fact that you keep claiming the same thing over and over again without fact is incredible. You have been proven wrong over and over and over again and yet you still cling to your opinions as fact. Ellsberg is an expert on what he did, he has no understanding of what Manning did. And yes I will say that again. Ellsberg is talking out his ass on the Manning case. I know, you trust him far more than you will ever trust me. I got it, don't waste your typing. Manning is not a whistleblower, he did not whistle blow. He gave information to a non-American private entity that has hostility to the U.S. That makes him a criminal, if it can be proven that this data he dumped made its way to Al Qaeda or any other extremist group, that is aiding the enemy. He is in a hell of a lot more trouble if that link is proven. I know you will say whatever you want, but the two questions remain. Name me a single documented war crime Manning uncovered? DOCUMENTED, because so far the only people that say Manning uncovered war crimes are his die hard supporters......Secondly, do you believe that Manning had time to read the majority of the cables he dumped?

[Swagman]

231. absolute garbage. Who is this "private entity" that has "hostility to the USA"?

are you referring to the "egoist" Julian Assange and Wikileaks ?

provide one single link or newspaper report on this planet where either have expressed "hostilty to the USA" (although that's still legal on this planet)...rather than hostility to US foreign policy or political decisions.

there is a difference and it's one reason the US becomes despised around the world- the arrogance in belief that any criticism of US policy is somehow a personal attack on Americans.

[AnalystInParadise]

237. U.S. policy

is created and enacted by the U.S. government of which Congress members and the President and Vice President are elected as the direct representatives of the American people. So yes Wikileaks is hostile to the U.S.

I have no problem with criticism of american policy, but Assange went far beyond mere criticism.

[premium]

271. Except that Manning was not a whistleblower,

he didn't follow the legal procedures for reporting what he believed were war crimes, he should have first aired his concerns to the IG's office and, failing that, written any congressperson or senator, he didn't, he gave them to a foreign entity, Assange, without even knowing what was in those cables, he put people who were working with the US Govt. in Afghanistan in danger, he made doing business with other countries more difficult.

Every military member, from the lowliest E-1 to the highest 0-9 has it hammered in them from the moment of joining the military, that guarding classified material is of the highest order, Manning didn't do that, instead he took it upon himself to release classified material without thinking about the consequences.
Well, now he's going to probably spend the rest of his miserable life in a max security prison and I won't shed one tear for him.

[leveymg]

299. That he didn't follow "legal procedures" doesn't make him any less a whistleblower - it just put him

in greater legal jeopardy. By your logic, Daniel Ellsberg isn't a whistleblower because he gave the Pentagon Papers to the NYT because Henry Kissinger, Senator Fullbright and Majority Leader Mike Mansfield wouldn't release them.

I'm sure Manning thought about the consequences, as did Ellsberg.

[premium]

302. The difference is that Ellsberg tried the legal way first,

whereas Manning did not, also, Ellsberg was a civilian not subject to the UCMJ, whereas Manning is.

No matter what any of us think, Manning is in serious trouble, he's already agreed to plead guilty to 10 charges and will, IMO, be found guilty of most of the other charges and spend most to the rest of his life in a super max prison.

[leveymg]

315. The difference is, Nixon unleashed the Plumbers on Ellsberg and got himself Impeached.

Ellsberg fully expected to be sent away to federal prison, and was very fortunate that the country decided to take Nixon out of office, instead.

No, Ellsberg himself says that what Manning did is virtually the same: http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/03/20/pentagon-papers-whistleblower-daniel-ellsberg-bradley-manning-one-person-who-acted-on-crimes-he-uncovered/

DANIEL ELLSBERG: There were differences in our circumstances, which made for differences in what we did, but the basic situation was simply identical. Bradley and I were both involved in ongoing wars, which we’d entered by a virtue of government executive deception and was continuing deception. In his case, he was looking at field level material, which revealed a great pattern of war crimes, domestic crimes, international crimes, torture, primarily, assassination and coercion of other states, which is not necessarily criminal but as he put it great power behavior toward other states, which was through almost every page of the Pentagon Papers in terms of our relations with the so-called government of South Vietnam, which we regarded contemptuously as a corrupt puppet of ours.

And it was information that would prolong the war if it remained secret. It was information that clearly the government intended to remain covered up. It was not secret by mistake or inadvertence. It was information that revealed crimes, lies, dereliction of duty in many ways. It would at the very least be embarrassing to the party in power if it didn’t lead to impeachment or prosecution.

So, it was information that called for investigation by Congress and the public and change. But change was not possible without information and information which resided in desks or in his case computer networks was being carefully protected by them and there was no way for Congress to do its function or the public to be the sovereign public in influencing policy unless someone took the personal risks of violating administrative regulations and putting out truths the administration didn’t want told.

Now, in this administration, it’s unusually clear that there is a campaign going on against whistleblowing, which is to say a campaign against truth-telling. It’s a war on truth-telling or a war on truth. Specifically, the truth that the government doesn’t want told because it’s embarrassing or incriminating and undermines the policies, which are being carried out, which policies are greatly invalid at best, ruthless and hopeless. So, we faced exactly the same situation together, as did thousands and thousands of others.

[Swagman]

227. apparently SidDithers doesn't believe in the court system

and confers guilt without trial.

[SidDithers]

280. DU is part of the court system?...

Who knew?

And here I thought we were all just expressing our opinions.

Strange, you don't seem to believe in the court system when the topic is Julian Assange.

Sid

[premium]

288. I musta missed the memo,

When did this happen? And what part of the court system does he think DU belongs to?

#scratch%20head

[premium]

2. Manning is no fucking hero,

he stole hundreds of thousands classified docs. and turn them over to an unauthorized person who then put them on the web uncensored which put lives in danger.
I hope this miserable little prick spends the rest of his life in Florence ADX where he belong.

Funny thing is, if he had gone the legal route, he wouldn't be in the trouble he's in now.

[Octafish]

5. No. Otherwise the Pentagon would not report that national security was not harmed by WikiLeaks.

Gee. None of the documents contained military information. Yet, some on DU agree with the neocon warmonger set to say otherwise.

Pentagon says WikiLeaks war logs do NOT harm national security; Neocons disagree

Neocon Joe Lieberman says leaks are “profoundly irresponsible and harmful”

By Justin Elliott in Salon

The Pentagon is telling NBC’s Michael Isikoff that a special assessment team looking over the WikiLeaks Afghanistan war logs has found nothing that could damage national security.

That preliminary assessment, from Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense David Lapan, is strikingly at odds with the official line out of the White House, which immediately invoked “national security” to attack the WikiLeaks release Sunday.

Wrote National Security Advisor James Jones in a strongly worded statement to reporters Sunday: “The United States strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security.”

Robert Gibbs continued with that tack at the press briefing today, arguing the war logs have the “potential to be very harmful to those that are in our military, those that are cooperating with our military, and those that are working to keep us safe.”

CONTINUED...

http://www.salon.com/2010/07/26/dod_says_wikileaks_not_a_threat/

No fucking offense, I'll side with Manning -- and the Pentagon -- over you and the neocons on this one.

[premium]

8. And I'll side with the UCMJ,

which he violated, you can justify what he did all you want, the plain, basic fact is that he broke the law and put lives in danger, and I'm not talking about US lives, I'm talking about those lives of informants in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He didn't even know most of what he was releasing, unless you're going to tell me that he read every 750K doc. that he released, think he did?
Not a chance.

He royally screwed up and now he'll be going where he belongs, Florence ADX.
If he had done it legally, I would support him 100%, but that's not what happen is it?

[Octafish]

12. He has not been convicted, yet you think him so. Is that based on something you learned on tee vee?

BTW: You wouldn't have a link to more information about the lives of informants he put at risk in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Much obliged.

[SidDithers]

48. He's already plead guilty to 10 charges...

which could net him 20 years in prison.

Whether you consider that "convicted" or not is immaterial.

Sid

[HangOnKids]

67. Yes I Would Love To See Those Links As Well

This poster has a way of stating his opinion as fact. Odd that. And with 2 posts hidden in just a couple of months on the site, I have to take his posts with a grain of salt.

[premium]

76. Take it with all the salt you want,

here, I'll even provide the salt.

[HangOnKids]

79. Ahh how clever

NOT. Not impressed premium, really very sloppy showing.

[premium]

88. Well, we all have our difference of opinion now, don't we? nt.

[HangOnKids]

80. Where are the links? n/t

[premium]

86. I just know you're not going to accept this, but, here goes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20011886-503543.html

The article says, in spite of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's claim that sensitive information had been removed from the leaked documents, that reporters scanning the reports for just a couple hours found hundreds of Afghan names mentioned as aiding the U.S.-led war effort.

[HangOnKids]

89. Sorry The Link Does Not Work

Sloppy. Very sloppy.

[randome]

91. Strange. My link below works fine but Premium's does not. I don't see the difference.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[premium]

93. Fixed it.

http://www.dailytech.com/Wikileaks+Assange+on+US+Informants+in+Afghanistan+They+Deserve+to+Die/article21724.htm

David Leigh of England's Guardian newspaper has leveled a shocking accusation against Mr. Assange in the special.

He recalls a meeting he was invited to about the publication of the war memos. He remembers pleading with Assange to redact the names of tribal elders and U.S. informants who were exposed cooperating with the U.S. and could be the subject of deadly retribution. He comments, "Julian was very reluctant to delete those names, to redact them. And we said: 'Julian, we’ve got to do something about these redactions. We really have got to.'"

"And he said: 'These people were collaborators, informants. They deserve to die.' And a silence fell around the table.

[Cha]

146. The Link works fine for me, premium, and I appreciate it. Good

job.

[premium]

242. Thank you.

[sabrina 1]

206. I'd like to those links also.

[randome]

81. CBS says 'hundreds' of informers' names were leaked.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20011886-503543.html

Hundreds of Afghan civilians who worked as informants for the U.S. military have been put at risk by WikiLeaks' publication of more than 90,000 classified intelligence reports which name and in many cases locate the individuals, The Times newspaper reported Wednesday.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Octafish]

125. The thing is that CBS report also goes to The Times article that was debunked from 3 years ago.

So, it's just an anonymous source saying something that was repeated. If there was something there, it would have been out and about in front of all the cameras.

Thank you, though. I very much appreciate the links. I will report what I find on that Rachel Maddow program, too, later this evening.

[randome]

128. If you have anything debunking it, I would like to see that, too.

Not really doubting you, just wondering if you have a link handy. Most of what I see at first glance are DailyKos reader comments.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Octafish]

165. There are zero follow-up reports. No evidence reported. Three years on. Ergo, de-bunked.

Maybe you can find something more. I couldn't.

The Times quoted something from an anonymous source. CBS reported it, as well, citing the Times. From there, the story went nowhere. If there was anything more, Judy Miller and the rest of the press corpse would pick it up.

Of course, that's not debunked in the manner of the late Philip J. Klass or the lone nut theorist John McAdams.

Sorry I can't find more on it. That's how it is, though.

[SidDithers]

126. Oh, Binka...

It's so cute when you chastise other DUers about their board behavior, you know, given your not-so-stellar histories here.

Sid

[Buzz Clik]

245. Two posts hidden per month is not a bad rate.

I had two posts alerted just yesterday.

Lively debates tend to piss off people ... not unlike this one.

[Maedhros]

33. The essence of authoritarianism

@premium: "If he had done it legally, I would support him 100%, but that's not what happen is it?"

You agree that leaking the information was the right thing to do. But you really, really hate that Manning defied Authority to do so, therefore you heap scorn on him.

[randome]

38. Leaking the names of hundreds of overseas informants was NOT the right thing to do.

If Manning was primarily motivated by the video that showed the Reuters reporters getting shot, that's what he should have released.

And giving all this national security material to a foreign national -and a private company like Wikileaks- definitely shows a lack of sense.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[premium]

39. He had no idea what he was leaking for the most part.

If he had gone to a congressperson or senator and told them of his concerns, then he would have done it legally, but that's not what happened, he gave them to a foreign entity which didn't even vet what was released.

He put informants lives in Iraq and Afghanistan is danger and for this alone, he should spend the rest of his life in prison.
Sorry, but you're not going to get any sympathy out of me for him.

[Maedhros]

61. This keeps getting stated as fact:

"He put informants lives in Iraq and Afghanistan is danger and for this alone, he should spend the rest of his life in prison."

There is no evidence for this, other than unsubstantiated statements by the same people that are trying to lock up Manning for life.

[randome]

63. There are more links above but this one specifically mentions 'hundreds'.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20011886-503543.html

Hundreds of Afghan civilians who worked as informants for the U.S. military have been put at risk by WikiLeaks' publication of more than 90,000 classified intelligence reports which name and in many cases locate the individuals, The Times newspaper reported Wednesday.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Maedhros]

177. See post #125 by Octafish above

The CBS story cites a Times article quoting an anonymous source. 3+ years go by with no confirmation from another source.

[JDPriestly]

160. Why was he given access to so much information in the first place?

That is my question. He was not a high level officer. Why did he have all that stuff? Diplomatic cables? Come on. Why was he able to obtain it?

Seems to me that while the public focuses on Manning, the real problem that existed and may still exist at a higher command level has not been discussed.

As a girl of about 15 I visited a relative who showed me her coding equipment, her Morse code equipment from WWII. She had been a WAC. Then she smiled at me secretively. She didn't say much, but when I learned of the ENIGMA team, I wondered whether she was telling me something without words. It seems to me that she was because she told me about her work as a WAC in such a manner as to make the maximum impression on me.

Many, many people knew that we solved the ENIGMA code during WWII. None of them ever told. I think that is because they truly believed that they were involved in something important, something true, something that gave them moral dignity. Sadly, the same cannot be said of many of those who served in Iraq and even more sadly, in Afghanistan.

The war in Afghanistan to oust the terrorists was and is most certainly at least in some respects a war of necessity if the 9/11 history that we have been told is true. (I think it probably is for the most part.) But the War in Iraq? It is understandable to me that a young, idealistic man serving in Iraq might have become very disillusioned with the military in which he was serving and the government that sent him there.

And might I add that Hillary Clinton and a number of other Democrats should be apologizing and asking for an inquiry into our rationale for that war. I would like to see a more honest examination of the Bush/Cheney War in Iraq that we have yet seen. That might shed new light on what Manning did. Because he has been targeted as a criminal because he violated specific rules. But Bush/Cheney have not been seriously questioned or investigated for what they did in Iraq and based on such flimsy evidence, reasoning and moral consideration. Shame on them for sending any young person to Iraq in the first place.

And now who is benefiting from the blood, sweat and tears of our soldiers in Iraq? China, Iran -- that was a foolish waste of our resources and the real crime against America.

[Octafish]

248. Great question. Thanks also for sharing that story about your relative, the WAC.

The codebreakers gave the Allies a strategic advantage: We knew what the enemy was thinking and planning. All of us who live in freedom owe your relative and all who served our eternal thanks for their service and sacrifice.

Regarding why a lowly PFC had the goods on the State Department in Iraq -- an outstanding question -- I'd speculate it was an intentional act by people in higher authority who have tired of seeing how the war is run for profit. Unable or unwilling to leak themselves, they made it possible for the PFC to magically cross paths with information that normally would be off-limits. A conscientious person, or one operating under the stress of war, or most anyone else who gave a damn about the Constitution, the nation and the People might put 2+2 together and say: "This stuff is the dynamite that could bring down the criminals."

Remember Col. Westhusing. He thought the war was a money maker for the connected cronies and ended up dead in 2005 for his trouble, another convenient, albeit mysterious, "suicide" a few days before rotating home.

Regarding Hillary and our side asking for an investigation: it's highly unlikely, based on how much money is being made off the war. It isn't just Diane Feinstein. The higher people get, the more "can't refuse" opportunities they receive. Like the late Tim Russert is alleged to have said: "Integrity is for paupers."

[JDPriestly]

249. Thank you. I do not know whether my relative was a codebreaker.

But before her death, I visited her and she showed me a book of cryptograms she was working. It seemed odd to me because I have always loved doing cryptograms and been very good at them. I noticed what she did because they were things I liked to do. Have you ever done them? They are fun. She was doing cryptograms that looked like hieroglyphics. I have never done ones like that.

[sulphurdunn]

44. The UCMJ also requires

that our armed forces not target non-combatants. Manning was obliged as a matter of honor under the UCMJ to blow the whistle on that. The injustice is that the trigger pullers have not been punished for the Apache slaughter. When that happens, and years of other war crimes, malfeasance and financial felonies are prosecuted, I'll be more sympathetic to prosecuting Manning for his far less brutal and serious offenses against this country.

[Pelican]

47. Like this guy...?

Maybe you would prefer a helicopter mounted sniper... It's a kickass MOS if you can get it...

[OnyxCollie]

54. Is he the guy defending his country, or invading it?

I forgot which.

Interesting handle. Does it come from the Pelican Institute? They share your views.

[HangOnKids]

69. Thank You

The silly just does not know when to stop does it? Is HE MAN going to appear next?

[sulphurdunn]

78. Of course,

you see one guy with an RPG so you get to shoot everyone. That's fair and I don't give a rat's ass about the guys with weapons, or the legitimate collateral damage. What really pisses me off is that they shot up the van with the kids in it that was only aiding a wounded guy (no weapons i.e non-combatants), and those fuckers in the chopper wasted them because they wanted to and knew they could get away with it. They were looking for an excuse. They should have passed up that kill. They chose not to because they are sadistic pricks. What I find most disturbing is the "It serves 'em right for bringing their kids to a battle," crack, and the "yea that's right," that followed with a few chuckles thrown in for effect. There was no battle, just a massacre, and I don't even have a problem with that, because bad shit happens all the time in war. But the fuckers who shot up those kids and then laughed about it should have been court-martialed, and then put in cages, and when they are, I'll be happy to discuss Bradley Manning's treason. Semper Fi.

[Smarmie Doofus]

171. +1. The mentality of the helicopter murder chucklers is not unlike...

... that of lot of the people in these Manning-hater threads.


They did nothing illegal!!! Where's the crime!!??? They did nothing wrong!!!!! It's their OWN FAULT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well then ... why'd the military hide the fucking thing by classifying it in the first place? And then lie about having it when it was FOIA'd by Reuters?

Must be because it showed that murdering a wounded civilian, a good samaritan trying to help him, chuckling about it, and then doing your best to murder the good samaritan's kids is PROOF that you did nothing illegal and did nothing wrong.

[randome]

57. Even Assange said it looked like these guys were carrying RPGs.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[think]

156. How about the two guys the helicopter lights up who are carrying wounded

people to a minivan. Did they deserve to get murdered?

Seriously....

[cstanleytech]

173. Alot of us are not that familar with the UCMJ so could you link the specific section that

applies to the use of deadly force on civilians mistaken for armed combatants and what actions are to be taken in the event of such a thing happening, thanks.

[sulphurdunn]

247. UCMJ 918.Art.118.Murder

The article refers to the unlawful and willful killing of a human being without justification or excuse. It makes no distinction between military or civilian personnel and says nothing about mistaking civilians for combatants. The hosing of a vehicle with kids in it that was collecting wounded men should have been investigated as an unlawful killing so far as I'm concerned, especially since they could have stood down until the grunts arrived. Fortunately for them, I don't make those kind of decisions, courts-martial do that. Also, I neglected to mention the Geneva Convention and Accords to which the US is a signatory and which are far less ambiguous about the mistreatment of civilians than is the UCMJ.

[cstanleytech]

274. Interesting. There is a problem though.

When I went and looked it up part of it says

(1) has a premeditated design to kill;

(2) intends to kill or inflict great bodily harm;

(3) is engaged in an act which is inherently dangerous to others and evinces a wanton disregard of human life; or

(4) is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of burglary, sodomy, rape, robbery, or aggravated arson;


That would seem offhand if I am reading it correctly to not apply in the case of civilians being mistaken for armed combatants but I could be mistaken. Perhaps you have a link to a similar but relevant case to show us what the courts have ruled in the past when its come to similar issue where civilians were mistaken for armed combatants?

[sulphurdunn]

287. 1,2 and 3 apply.

Your entire argument rests upon "mistaking civilians for armed combatants." Nothing in military law claims such an exemption. By your reasoning, Robert Bales should have been able to use that defense, especially since he'd served 4 tours of duty and was suffering from PTSD and considered all Afghans as the enemy. Furthermore, your argument presupposes that had Bates so much as heard a single shot fired the night he murdered 16 people, it would have been justifiable because he had mistaken them for armed combatants. 1,2 and 3 apply as much to the crew of the Apache for soliciting and then executing an unlawful order that resulted in the death of non-combatants.

[cstanleytech]

296. And the rest of my question?

How many trials have there been where a soldier shot and killed someone believing they were armed and later turns out to have been a mistake and it was an unarmed civilian and the soldiers involved were arrested and charged with war crimes?
Oh and links to said cases to please, thanks.

[sulphurdunn]

306. See, you keep

using terms like "believed" and "mistake" and other opinions and assumptions. There are only two possible conclusions that may be drawn from your position: Either a failure to prosecute the killing of civilians means it is always an accident or is proper anytime plausible deniability is posited as an excuse. All that is required is an understanding that everyone encountered is a combatant. "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out." That sort of thing. Forget the fucking legalisms. You know as well as I do that a lot of innocent people are killed in cold blood during combat operations. If you don't, you've never been in combat. If you have, I'll be damned why you'd try and make excuses for it.

[cstanleytech]

309. Well I certainly cannot force you to answer the question.

I will leave it up to the others on the forum to make up their minds on your lack of answering but for me it answers alot.

[sulphurdunn]

312. I have answered the question, repeatedly.

You just aren't hearing it. Read the transcripts of the Wllliam Calley trial and history of the My Lai massacre. That should answer your question, unless you still find it necessary to pointlessly split already split hairs. I am more than happy to leave it up to others on the forum to decide.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

152. Colonel Jessup, is that you?

[premium]

276. How cute, NOT! nt.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

281. The Late 80s called. They want their lame retort back. nt

[premium]

283. Talk about lame retorts.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

307. Yes, speaking of ...

[premium]

308. Your superior intellect

astounds me.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

334. I'm happy for you.

[JDPriestly]

158. He will serve time for the things that he has admitted.

But war crimes and deciding who did and did not commit them over the course of history is a difficult thing.

Was our invasion of Iraq a war crime in and of itself? If not, then you are right. But did we go into Iraq because Iraq had attacked us? Why did we go in? Motivation is an important factor in determining whether an invasion is or is not a war crime. Personally I think that Bush and Cheney should be tried by an international court to determine whether they committed a war crime.

So if the invasion of Iraq should be determined to be a war crime then maybe Manning was a hero.

If not, then maybe he was a criminal.

The crucial issue is whether he exposed war crimes or whether he gave away secrets that were legitimate and should have been respected. I am undecided, but if he had access to real secrets, then his superiors showed very poor judgment and should be sitting in the docket with Manning. I think Manning is either innocent because he answered a greater moral justice or he is guilty but only as guilty as some of his superiors who gave so many people access to documents and information they did not need to have. What I am saying is that if the documents really were vital secrets for our national security, they should have been better protected. Manning did not have the rank or responsibility to be entrusted with such a large amount of top secret information.

Manning published this information. But he was not paid for providing it to anyone.

Have you wondered how many of the other people who were so recklessly provided the information may have done things that were of greater strategic harm to the US than Manning? I have wondered about that.

[CharlesInCharge]

186. Acc. to the UN charter, only the UN Security Council can authorize a

"Preventive War." Bush did not get a Security Council resolution.Thus, war crime.

[randome]

9. 'National security' may not have been impacted...

...but Manning's document dump included the names of hundreds of informers. He put their lives at risk for no good reason.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Octafish]

13. Really? Got a link?

Not that I'm going to put their names out there, I'd just like to see if it's something along the lines of John Smith or Muhammed Muhammed vs Jonathan Q. Smith of Arlington, Del., or Muhammed M. il-dar Saleen of Basra.

[randome]

17. From Rachel Maddow's show last night.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/#52089598

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Octafish]

22. Great. A splash page for the show. The only place I've seen anyone link to such is Free Republic.

Leaked War Files Expose Identities of Afghan Informants

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2560184/posts

Other than that, there's the usual haters on Conservative Cave

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?56370-Octafish-posts-another-BFEE-thread

[randome]

24. You just need to wait a few seconds for the video to load.

There is a colored, rotating cursor wheel spinning while the load is taking place.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Wait Wut]

65. I think you'd get better responses...

...if you stopped calling and/or comparing DU members to FReepers and Conservatives. If you want a serious debate, stop the name calling. I'm frankly sick and tired of people claiming someone isn't a Democrat/Liberal just because they have a different opinion. It tells me the name caller has no other argument.

[zappaman]

97. +100!

But it won't happen.

[Octafish]

100. Who'd I call a freeper?

That's what you wrote, Wait Wut, not me.

[Wait Wut]

118. "The only place I've seen anyone link to such is Free Republic."

That's just one example. There are several within this thread. That's a sneaky way of saying "You must be one of them."

You can deny it, or you can stop it.

[Octafish]

121. So? That's a different thing, entirely. You have yet to show where I called anyone a freeper.

...on this or any thread.

[Wait Wut]

122. I'm done.

You're playing a game and I don't have the time nor desire.

[Octafish]

124. Bye. It's no game.

Show me where I called someone a freeper, otherwise don't say that's what I wrote.

[Cha]

147. Exactly, Wait Wut, When they have nothing that's what

they resort to.

[MADem]

223. Concur, completely.

Name calling and insults are what happens on DU when an argument fails.

[SidDithers]

284. Well said...nt

Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Do you have source materials, an 8 minute video from an opnion show is not really news.

It's a pundit talking about her point of view on carefully selected parts of the whole. Maddow and her staff are repeaters, not reporters. She's a pundit, not a journalist. Opinions and punditry have no place in this discussion.

[randome]

25. Only a Wikipedia source so far.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_published_by_WikiLeaks

According to the New York Times, Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders criticized WikiLeaks for what they saw as risking people’s lives by identifying Afghans acting as informers.[117] A Taliban spokesman said that the Taliban had formed a nine-member "commission" to review the documents "to find about people who are spying."[117] He said the Taliban had a "wanted" list of 1,800 Afghans and was comparing that with names WikiLeaks provided, stating "after the process is completed, our Taliban court will decide about such people.

I'll see if I can find something more direct.

On edit: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/07/29/afghanistan.wikileaks.karzai/index.html

"Because whether those individuals acted legitimately or illegitimately in providing information to the NATO forces, they are lives, and their lives will be in danger now."

"We think of national security as this linguistic buzz word, but it's more human than that," Lamo said. "National security is about individuals. At the end of the day, it's about the people who guard our national security and the people who benefit from it. With that in mind, I felt I would be the word kind of coward if I had simply sat by."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7918632/Bradley-Manning-suspected-source-of-Wikileaks-documents-raged-on-his-Facebook-page.html

Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the leakers “might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family” because, he said, the leaked documents included the names of Afghan informants.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2335246/Bradley-Manning-released-classified-information-Wikileaks-arrogance-craving-notoriety-military-court-hears-day-historic-trial.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

One example is the disclosure of the names of Afghan informants cooperating with allied forces, which put them in danger and forced steps to find and protect them.

Ah...CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20011886-503543.html

Hundreds of Afghan civilians who worked as informants for the U.S. military have been put at risk by WikiLeaks' publication of more than 90,000 classified intelligence reports which name and in many cases locate the individuals, The Times newspaper reported Wednesday.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Maedhros]

35. Are you as concerned

with the numerous confirmed deaths of innocent people that result from our drone campaigns as you are with the small number of hypothetical deaths that might be a result of the Manning leaks?

Are you as concerned with the very serious crimes by our government revealed by the leaks as you are with the relatively minor crime of releasing classified (not Top Secret) information to the press?

[Pelican]

50. Got it...

You were proven wrong and instead went with the equivalent of "He started it and his was way worse"

The level of classification is immaterial. It was not his to distribute.

This is all desperate rationalization.

He violated the promise that he made voluntarily and deserves to make big rocks into little rocks for a very long time.

[Maedhros]

66. I understand that Manning broke the law.

That is part and parcel of civil disobedience: one defies the law, and accepts the consequences, because one believes that to disobey (i.e. by leaking classified documents) is the right think to do. I have no issue with holding Manning accountable for what he has done.

I take issue with the single-minded focus on demonizing Manning for defying authority while at the same time discounting and ignoring the bad acts of the governments detailed in the leaks. Doing so plays into the hands of the bad actors, who want nothing more than to get us all to forget what was in the leaks and instead join a witch hunt against Manning, Assange and Wikileaks.

For Manning, you demand accountability for what is a comparably small crime: leaking classified documents.

For the government, which has committed far more serious acts, you look the other way.

[OnyxCollie]

68. They need to look the other way.

Otherwise, it's balls across the nose.

[brooklynite]

95. But he didn't accept the consequences and neither did his supporters...

He didn't expect to be arrested, and his supporters don't believe he should be.

[Maedhros]

111. There is some precedent for that belief

i.e. Ellsberg.

Again, its telling that Manning's relatively minor crime elicits such a hue and cry for accountability and retribution from (purported) liberals, but the far more serious bad acts of the government that the leaks uncovered provokes a disinterested "meh."

To my mind: sure, Manning may have broken military law by releasing classified (not secret) information. But the information that was revealed provides a very useful and important means of holding our government accountable for the bad acts it commits. That ability to impose accountability outweighs the harm done by Manning.

It's somewhat similar to the outcry against the Occupy movement. The value of the Movement in bringing the issue of wealth disparity to the national stage far outweighed the "crime" of Occupying a public park without a permit.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

162. Well said, Maedhros, well said. nt

[randome]

51. In a perfect world, there would be no drones and no government malfeasance.

And if Manning showed an iota of common sense, he would have flagged that Apache video and sent it to whatever Congressman he thought he could trust.

He didn't. He was not interested in anything but putting the spotlight on himself as a 'hero'.

The leaks did not reveal anything that we didn't already know. The Apache helicopter attack was not a war crime.

Invading Iraq in the first place, I can see calling that a war crime. But Manning was not concerned with that because nothing he released had anything to do with that.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Octafish]

291. Even in the crappiest democracy there wouldn't be assassination of Americans without trial.

But, there is.

Regarding the Apache helicopter attack: It is a war crime.

And they killed journalists. Truth.

[stevenleser]

132. The pentagon does not have covert agents in the field. Get back to me when the CIA says it has not

harmed their operations.

[Comrade Grumpy]

150. Like we're supposed to believe the CIA about anything?

How about showing ANYONE who has been killed as a result of Manning's leak?

[stevenleser]

167. Are we five years old now? Is any country going to acknowledge the elimination of its agents or

covert sources?

Anyone who is intellectually honest would acknowledge that it is much more likely than not that we lost dozens of folks as a result of what Manning did.

[Maedhros]

151. In a democracy

I place the importance of revealing bad acts by my government above protecting the operations of the spy network (which are also likely some of the aforementioned "bad acts.&quot

But, then again, I want to stop my government from engaging in those bad acts. YMMV.

[stevenleser]

168. LOL, Manning didn't do that. He released hundreds of thousands of documents at random.

And no, the folks that likely died as a result of what Manning did were not engaged in bad acts.

So if you want your government to stop engaging in any bad acts, Manning did not accomplish that.

[Maedhros]

176. A man's life is at stake here

"LOL" is an inappropriate response.

Please provide some evidence of "folks that likely died as a result of what Manning did" or please stop making the claim.

No, Manning did not solve the problem all by himself. What he did was uncover and make available to the public concrete, solid evidence of government malfeasance that cannot be shrugged away with the standard "he said/she said" non-debate favored by the networks.

It should go without saying that a representative democracy cannot expect to function if the criminal acts of our government are hidden away out of sight. We need to keep our eye on the ball, here. A lot of effort is being expended trying to get us to fixate on Manning's relatively minor infraction and to completely ignore the wrongdoing depicted in the leaked cables.

[stevenleser]

180. LOL is an entirely appropriate response. He had options for addressing the specific wrongdoing

he chose to do otherwise. He is going to get the punishment he so richly deserves. And I am going to smile and probably laugh when the sentence is handed down.

[OnyxCollie]

232. If the sentence comes by Predator drone, you'll wet yourself.

Authoritarian followers like yourself just love that.

[navarth]

263. This is the first time

I've seen you act like a jerk. I don't get it, I've enjoyed your posts in the past.

[stevenleser]

269. There is good reason for being happy with Manning's punishment

There are two ways Manning could have done this that would have accomplished outing the wrongdoing without removing whistleblower status for himself.

1. He could have released only the twelve or fewer documents that indicate actual wrongdoing instead of willy-nilly releasing 250,000+ documents he never read.

2. He could have gone to the inspector general or a member of congress, ala a Kucinich or a Bernie Sanders to complain about the wrongdoing.

If he had done either of those things, I would be the most forceful supporter of Manning on DU. The difference between doing those things and what he did is striking. Mannings actions likely caused the deaths of several dozen covert agents and informers around the world. He dealt a serious blow not to the US but to the institution of diplomacy. Anything that hurts the ability of diplomats to do their jobs is a serious crime IMHO.

[HangOnKids]

273. Have you served Steve?

A simple yes or no will do.

[stevenleser]

277. Yes. I also witnessed the IG address wrongdoing. nt

[Octafish]

338. You mean, apart from the Army's interns at CNN and NPR, a direct phone call from CIA works wonders.

NPR news chiefs deny they knew of Army interns

Which is nothing, other than learning the ropes of ECOMCON, until one considers how much, eh, editorial control CIA exerts:

[font color="red"]Wanna know why Media ignore war criminals?[/font color] CIA calls the shots.

Sounds like you got some history to catch up on, stevenleser. Be sure to get back when you can.

[Swagman]

229. you are no fucking hero either

deciding guilt before the evidence is presented in a court no matter how appealing lynching is.

[AnalystInParadise]

240. Manning pleaded guilty to 10 crimes

He is going to jail no matter what the outcome of the other charges. He declared his own guilt

[premium]

243. Hey Swagman,

he's already agreed to plead guilty to 10 counts, and I never claimed to be a hero.

[SidDithers]

285. Manning has already plead guilty to 10 charges...

and those were naked pleas, not part of some plea bargain.

Guilt has already been decided. Try to keep up.

Sid

[NCTraveler]

4. I gave you a rec, but don't fully agree.

I do think Manning is just where he needs to be. I also think justice has turned a blind eye to unacceptable and horrific crimes. Crimes of great severity. Crimes that have done great damage to our nation. Not just of how others view us, but our own psyche as well. I think that is more than worth talking about.

"So. Revealing crime is a crime. Hello, 1984!"

No. A massive dump of classified files is a crime. That is a pretty simple thing to understand. I still can't for the life of me figure out why people don't understand it.

Torture should be a crime with severe punishment. Those ordering the torture should be put on trial, and if found guilty, imprisoned. That is not happening. Our military commanders should not receive the protections they do. Don't get me wrong, our military commanders should be protected to an extent, but the current state of affairs has gone to far. The killing of civilians also needs to be investigated in a different manner. Too often the process seem to not go far enough.

[Octafish]

10. Thank you for adding your perspective, which adds to our understanding.

What you posted -- while I disagree about the nature of the leak and its impact -- is why Manning, Assange and WikiLeaks matter. For a democracy to function, it needs to have all voices heard and views considered.

One of the great arguments of today is where and when "national security" trumps the public's right to know. Arguing in favor of the former is Cass Sunstein, the latter Glenn Greenwald.

As a Democrat, I believe there is nothing the public should not know -- apart from information that would harm the nation. What Manning leaked only harms the perpetrators of the Bush policy: "Money trumps peace."

[Bodhi BloodWave]

36. So you think the public's right to know

should include the names of any and all informants for the US within hostile countries et al?

or would that fall under info that would harm the nation?

[Octafish]

335. What I know: People killed by Bradley Manning-0. People killed by Bush & Cheney-100,000+

That's lumping the victims of several illegal, unnecessary, immoral and disastrous wars together.

Don't forget the money, several trillion of our tax dollars.

Now, who hurt America more: Bush or Manning?

[stevenleser]

19. I agree. Well said. nt

[CanSocDem]

6. Indeed.

Hopefully the trial will get enough publicity that a national dialogue will take place. A very legitimate question is in whose interests is justice serving. Do the people have a right to know...everything!!?? Tough question for the mainstream.

.

[Octafish]

16. Most Americans have no idea what the USG does in their name.

I don't believe the public's right to know be decided in secret by people who directly benefit from that secrecy. Case in point, Dusty Foggo at CIA making money from kickbacks along with his Congressional superconservativeueberhawk Duke Cunningham.

In the early 20th century, Smedley Butler understood what was going on. Our main export was death. Imports varied by nation looted. And Butler said he felt like a gangster collecting for racketeers. But, when I mention his name in conversation, about the only ones who know who he was are now old Marines.

"War is a racket. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives." -- Smedley D. Butler

For all who enjoy reading about the nation's true state of affairs: "War Is a Racket" in PDF form.

The good general, who received two Medals of Honor and singlehandedly stopped the fascist coup against FDR.

[navarth]

37. Thank you for the link, Octafish

General Smedley Butler is one of my heroes. I'm going to grab that PDF.

Keep fighting.

[G_j]

7. if the US had not been involved in criminal

acts against humanity, covering up and refusing to investigate, it might not look like pure hypocrisy.

[Octafish]

20. Bush. Cheney. Powell. Rumsfeld...When will they go on trial for lying America into war?

Let us Never Forget the GUILTY

[William769]

11. kick & recommended.

[Octafish]

31. 'Washington Babylon' explains why things are so messed up that money really does trump peace.

CORRUPTION

Washington Babylon

California Republican congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham traded military contracts for $2.4 million in antiques, cash, and other booty. He is now in jail, but his case exposed a world of bribery, booze, and broads that reaches into the Pentagon, the C.I.A., and Congress. Washington is wondering: Who's next?

by Judy Bachrach
Vanity Fair, August 2006

The corruption of Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a powerful California Republican, was, as the U.S. Attorney's Office maintains, historically "unparalleled"—an astonishing statement coming in the wake of the Abramoff scandal. A former Vietnam naval pilot who was awarded two Silver Stars and a Purple Heart, Cunningham, now 64, appropriated John Wayne's nickname and first ran for the House with the slogan "A congressman we can be proud of." Indeed, from the moment he arrived in Washington, in 1991, he made it his business to seem larger than life, telling people that his wartime heroics had inspired episodes in the movie Top Gun. His military service and expertise eventually earned him a place on the defense-appropriations subcommittee, with vast sway over the military budget, as well as on the intelligence committee, which oversees the C.I.A. and other spy agencies. Ever ready to defend the integrity of the armed forces, as he saw it, Duke excoriated Democrats who wanted to cut the defense budget, calling them the same people "who would put homos in the military."

SNIP...

The truth is no one knows if the $2.4 million in bribes Cunningham has admitted taking in his guilty plea is the final total. Duke's been at it for some time. In fact, right up to the end, the Maryland antiques dealer tells me, Cunningham was trying to get her to put one of his valuable 19th-century armoires in storage, "anywhere, he didn't care where," as long as it was far from the government's prying eyes. "Very immature, thinking the rules of the game didn't apply to him," the dealer says. But why should they? For years he had been running the game. (Cunningham's attorney, K. Lee Blalack II, refuses to comment on the substance of the case.)

In March, Cunningham was sentenced to eight years and four months in prison—the harshest sentence ever received by an ex-congressman for corruption. But the investigations are far from over, and allegations continue to surface implicating other legislators and government officials. California Republican congressman Jerry Lewis, head of the House committee on appropriations, is currently being investigated. So is Wilkes's best friend from high-school days, Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, who was until recently No. 3 at the C.I.A., and who is alleged to have accepted lavish favors from Wilkes—a trip to a Honolulu estate, for instance, renting for $50,000 per week—in exchange for arranging lucrative C.I.A. contracts for his friend. (Wilkes, Lewis, and Foggo have denied any wrongdoing.) Republican congresswoman and senatorial candidate Katherine Harris, of Florida, a source familiar with her activities tells me, is also being scrutinized for her dealings with Wade—in particular, for receiving $32,000 in illegal campaign donations, and for a lavish dinner she enjoyed last year for which he paid more than $3,300. (Harris says that she did not know the donations were illegal and has since given the money to charity.) In addition, Wade, who is cooperating with the authorities, has told the F.B.I. that Wilkes kept hospitality suites in the Watergate Hotel and Westin Grand in order to entertain legislators and government officials with evenings of poker, cigars, and, on occasion, for Cunningham, prostitutes.

Tens of thousands of pages of congressional documents going as far back as 1997 have been demanded by the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Diego. The C.I.A., Pentagon, I.R.S., and F.B.I. are conducting investigations, and at least three congressional committees are cooperating in hopelessly tardy fashion. "We are scrubbing" is how a staffer on the intelligence committee puts it. Washington is unraveling.

"What these revelations provide is a window into Babylon or the last stages of Rome," explains a source with knowledge of the multiple ongoing investigations. "Many felonies went undetected because in the Defense Department a lot goes on in secret, and these crimes grew in the shadow of both 9/11 and one-party rule—with little scrutiny. So what you're looking at is a world where money, secrecy, sex, and indulgence were all in play. Where everyone is guilty of something."

CONTINUED...

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/washington200608

BTW: Carol Lam, the Assistant U.S. Attorney prosecuting all this, got fired by Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales -- before the prosecutorial trail from San Diego ended up in the Bushco Oval Office.

[KoKo]

254. Thanks for that Refresher....Amazing what goes down the rabbit hole of

memories when there is such short attention span by MSM due to cut backs in print media reporting and reporters plus fluff news distraction by Cable/Networks.

Connecting the Dots and Big Picture analysis is lost when we are constantly assaulted by distraction and emphasis on endless battling campaigns of Red vs. Blue Political Elections heavily spiced with Kardashian/Celebrity Porn. Meanwhile our endless "War on Terror Across the World chugs along , Wall Street Corruption investigation results in a fine for accepting a slap on the hand instead of prosecution while our Standard of Living for the 99% further declines.

I remember all the reporting about Duke Cunningham, Dusty Foggo and the rest. Josh at TPM was all over it at the time. DU was active in following it at the time.

Thanks for the "Connect the Dots," Octafish. Your posts are always a refresher for inquiring minds--giving extensive informative links that jar our memories.


I wonder what ever happened to those "continuing investigations?"

Tens of thousands of pages of congressional documents going as far back as 1997 have been demanded by the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Diego. The C.I.A., Pentagon, I.R.S., and F.B.I. are conducting investigations, and at least three congressional committees are cooperating in hopelessly tardy fashion. "We are scrubbing" is how a staffer on the intelligence committee puts it. Washington is unraveling.

[stevenleser]

18. One does not preclude the other. Both committed crimes. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

27. And yet in one case we are told to 'turn the page, look forward, turn a blind eye to crime'

while in the other we are told that great and horrible things would happen if we were to fail to prosecute the Private. You are comfortable with that for some reason.
Torture? Turn the page! Expose war crimes? World will end if he is not in prison!

[stevenleser]

129. I advocate for the prosecution of Bush, Cheney et al, often on my radio show. So thats not true. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. I'm eagerly awaiting the trials of the murderers and other miscreants he exposed.

Of course, out "transparent" government wouldn't dream of covering up or ignoring any crimes committed by any one. Now, about the tourers at Abu-Ghraib, the drone pilots who killed civilians, the banksters who worked in collusion to defraud the public, the politicians who stated the wars.....

[msanthrope]

32. Can you name them? That would be helpful. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. No, I can't. The government is keeping them secret.

And, or, they already got a pass from Obama. "We have to look forward..", and all that.

[msanthrope]

52. Wait a second!!! That makes no sense!! Manning dumps 700k documents and videos and

you can't name anybody???? Then what did Manning 'expose?'

[premium]

53. Boggles the mind, doesn't it? nt.

[msanthrope]

59. No one can name ANYONE that committed a war crime? nt

[jberryhill]

105. That's correct

Why is Manning protecting their identities?

[msanthrope]

110. Maybe he's in on it. nt

[Rex]

112. George Walker Bush and Dick Cheney

Donald...oh you, no sorry have no idea what was released in those files. And this is from a vet that served in army military intelligence - maybe LOOK through the classified information FIRST before you do a data dump to the entire world.

Of course that is just ME, I would feel bad if I had done something like that and not even looked at the information. How do you know what is in it 100%? I think he got jumpy.

Other than that, we will NEVER see the people that committed the actual war crimes go to trial, this particular trial has nothing to do with it.

We were told to 'move forward' and forget about the past. Stupid idea, should always try and go after criminals when you can. Like this low ranking enlisted guy. His trial is easy to prove, has no impact on the nation. Unlike trying to hold a trial for a former POTUS.

Guess one is an easy slam dunk and the other might start cause future election loses.

[msanthrope]

117. We needed a Bradley Manning to tell us that Bush and Cheney are criminals??? I think not. nt

[Rex]

141. No I was just answering your question.

I can easily name some war criminals for you.

[CharlesInCharge]

324. George Walker Bush for commiting the supreme crime against the peace,

aggressive war (per the standard laid down at Nuremberg)

Happy?

All other crimes spring from that original crime. So why isn't Bush under indictment??????????????

[msanthrope]

326. We needed a 700k paper dump to tell us that? nt

[CharlesInCharge]

327. You asked, you were answered and you then proceeded to

move the goal posts.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. Obviously, the "dumping" of documents was harmless and he should be released.

[msanthrope]

58. 'Harm' isn't an element of the statute. nt

[premium]

62. IOW,

fuck the foreigners that was helping us, right?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

116. Bradley Manning is a foreigner? Who knew?

Which foreigners?

[premium]

244. I was referring to the Afghans that were helping the US in Afghanistan.

But you knew that, didn't you.

[leveymg]

300. Those named were corrupt officials whose names were originally in a Dari-language academic paper.

Nobody has been harmed, and it's unlikely this told the Taliban they didn't already know.

[premium]

304. You're seriously saying that the only names outed were corrupt officials?

Not according to AIHRC.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/wikileaks+damage+already+done+says+human+rights+group/3727677.html

But Ahmad Nader Nadery, the Commissioner of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) told Channel 4 News the damage is already done, because thousands of Afghans have already downloaded the files.


'Thousands of Afghans have downloaded the entire package'


He said: "Release of names of the tribal elders and community members who met US, ISAF or NATO forces is an absolute irresponsibility.


"There is no protection mechanisms for these people, be it informant or other community members who as part of the role as an elder meets with the officials or international forces, while wikileaks served greatly in brining to public some of the unspoken files, it certainly also acted against the principle of “Do No Harm” that all civil society and watchdogs have to adhere to.


"I am not sure if only taking these names out now of the website could do any good, as only in Afghanistan, as far as I know, thousands of people had downloaded the entire package."


Mr Nadery's comments come just a day after a former MI5 officer told Channel 4 News that the published names or identification of Afghan informants will put, not only their lives, but the lives of friends and family at risk.

[leveymg]

310. It's interesting that in 3 yrs since that article appeared, not one verified case of harm.

Care to discuss that?

[premium]

311. Just because we haven't heard of it,

doesn't mean it hasn't happened, right?
But I guess the Taliban being so benevolent and forgiving, they would never use those docs. to extract their form of justice.

[leveymg]

313. Believe me, if there was one severed head, we would have seen it. Over and over and over again.

Any such incident would also be referenced in the charging documents, which it isn't. Conspicuous by its absence.

Don't expect a lot of sympathy for the Taliban and their Saudi/ISI backers from me.

[premium]

337. Same here

no sympathy for the Taliban or their Saudi/ISI backers.

[hughee99]

26. I think people would be more likely to see it this way IF

Manning had only released documents related to crimes instead also releasing massive volumes of information he hadn't even read.

I'm not sure that the pilots describing people as "dead bastards" is a crime, but it's certainly bad PR for the US.

Whether any lives were actually put in danger or not is probably something even the Pentagon can't say for sure, but in any case, even if Manning read each and every message, he's not in a position to know what puts people in danger and what doesn't.

Even if 20% of the documents show evidence of war crimes, he still also leaked tens of thousands of classified documents that don't, and I don't think the court is going to buy that one cancels out the other.

[Octafish]

253. Great point. The thing is, the other documents revealed State Department work for money grubbers.

That, apparently, is much worse than exposing war crimes on the part of the nation's leadership. A sample:

WikiLeaks embassy cables: the key points at a glance

There are no fewer than 251,287 cables from more than 250 US embassies around the world, obtained by WikiLeaks. We present a day-by-day guide to the revelations from the US embassy cables both from the Guardian and its international media partners in the story

The Guardian (UK)

EXCERPT...

Guardian

• China is ready to accept Korean unification and is distancing itself from North Korea which it describes as behaving like a "spoiled child". Cables say Kim Jong-il is a "flabby old chap" losing his grip and drinking.

• Prince Andrew attacked a Serious Fraud Office anti-corruption investigation during a meeting with British businessmen in Kyrgyzstan and criticised a Guardian investigation – and the French – in what the US ambassador there described as "an astonishingly candid" performance verging on the rude. He is also reported to like big game hunting and falconry.

• An official from the Commonwealth secretariat claimed Prince Charles is not respected in the same way as the Queen and questioned whether the heir apparent should necessarily succeed his mother as the head of the Commonwealth.

• Hillary Clinton wanted a briefing on the mental health of Argentina's President Cristina Kirchner and asked whether she was taking medication to calm her down.

Der Spiegel

• The German magazine focuses on the US administration's search for countries willing to take its Guantánamo prisoners, if it closed the base down, and the German government's reluctance to help, with foreign minister Wolfgang Schäuble reportedly very sceptical. The German government would not accept 17 Uighur prisoners, despite the support of the Uighur exiled community in Munich, for fear of upsetting the Chinese government.

There is an extensive network of informants in Berlin, informing the US about Angela Merkel's coalition negotiations. Merkel is described as an enigma, and sceptical about the US.

• The US administration doubts the Turkish government's dependability as an ally, describing it as having little understanding of the outside world and its foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu's "neo-Ottoman visions" as exceptionally dangerous. It describes a Muslim fraternity within the governing party and an "iron ring of sycophantic but contemptuous advisers".

Le Monde

• The French newspaper Le Monde reports US diplomats describing the former president of Haiti, René Préval, as "indispensable but difficult ... a chameleon character" unwilling to accept advice.

• In 2005, US diplomats reported France as being a difficult ally in the fight against international terrorism, because its specialist investigating magistrates were insular, centred on Paris and operating in "another world".

El País

• Spain's El País focuses on repeated attempts by the US to curb court cases in Spain against American soldiers and politicians accused of involvement in Iraq war crimes or torture at Guantánamo. It highlights a series of cables relating to the possibility of Spain accepting former Guantánamo prisoners. Spain's political situation and public opinion made this "almost impossible", an official said.

Day 3, Wednesday 1 December

The Guardian

• The head of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, privately criticised David Cameron and George Osborne (now the prime minister and chancellor) before the election for their lack of experience, the lack of depth in their inner circle and their tendency to think about issues only in terms of their electoral impact. Osborne lacked gravitas and was seen as a political lightweight because of his "high-pitched vocal delivery" according to private Conservative polling before the election.

• US and British diplomats fear that Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme could lead to terrorists obtaining fissile material, or a devastating nuclear exchange with India. Also, small teams of US special forces have been operating secretly inside Pakistan's tribal areas, with Pakistani government approval. And the US concluded that Pakistani troops were responsible for a spate of extra-judicial killings in the Swat Valley and tribal belt, but decided not to comment publicly.

• Gordon Brown unsuccessfully lobbied the US for the British computer hacker Gary McKinnon to be allowed to serve any jail sentence in the UK. David Cameron said British people generally believe McKinnon is guilty "but they are sympathetic".

• The US ambassador to Pakistan said the Pakistani army is covertly sponsoring four major militant groups, including the Afghan Taliban and the Mumbai attackers, Laskar-e-Taiba (LeT), and "no amount of money" will change the policy. Also, US diplomats discovered hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to Pakistan earmarked for fighting Islamist militants was not used for that purpose.

• Pakistan's army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, considered pushing President Asif Ali Zardari from office and forcing him into exile to resolve a political dispute, the US embassy cables reveal. Separately, Zardari once told the US vice-president, Joe Biden, he feared the military "might take me out". He told the Americans his sister would lead if he was assassinated. Another cable revealed that the Pakistani president was described as a "numbskull" by Sir Jock Stirrup, Britain's then chief of defence staff.

• The US praised former British Guantánamo detainee Moazzam Begg for his campaign to persuade European countries to take in remaining detainees from the prison camp.

• Senior Lib Dem officials, who now work in No 10 and the Cabinet Office, planned a campaign to depict David Cameron as "fake" and "out of touch" during the election campaign, but abandoned the strategy because it was deemed too aggressive after the death of his son, Ivan.

• The Tories told the US before the general election that a Conservative government could be tougher on Pakistan as it was less reliant on votes from people with a Pakistani connections than Labour. Referring to Muslim extremists coming to Britain from Pakistan, Cameron said that under Labour "we let in a lot of crazies and did not wake up early enough".

• Zardari claimed that the brother of Pakistan's opposition leader, Nawaz Sharif, "tipped off" LeT about impending UN sanctions after the 2008 Mumbai attacks, allowing the group to empty its bank accounts. British diplomats feared India would respond with force to the attacks but the US thought the UK was "over-reacting".

• The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, is portrayed as a self-absorbed, thin-skinned, erratic character who tyrannises his ministers and staff but is also a brilliant political tactician, in US memos. The Saudis were irritated by Sarkozy planning to take Carla Bruni on a state visit to their country before she was married. Sarkozy invited Gordon Brown and the Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, to last year's D-day commemorations because "the survival of their governments was at stake".

• The British government promised to protect US interests during the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war.

• The Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, has been sheltering the leader of the nationalist insurgency in Pakistan's Balochistan province for years.

Le Monde

• Le Monde focuses on what the cables say about Sarkozy, notably his pro-Americanism, his idea that an international force could replace the US in Iraq, and the US view on his election that he was "a novice" in international affairs with a poor grasp of English.

Der Spiegel

• The paper has significant coverage of Pakistan, with a story that the Pakistani military and secret service are heavily involved in the country's politics and often work against US interests.

• A subsidiary of the US private security firm Xe (then known as Blackwater) flouted German arms export law. It transported German helicopters to Afghanistan via Britain and Turkey without a permit because it was taking too long to get the German export papers.

CONTINUED w/links...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-embassy-cables-key-points

Whilte there are many examples of how petty the interests of the nation are, especially on behalf of the Have-Mores, I've searched, and can't find even one example of where Manning or WikiLeaks released information that would be beneficial to an enemy of the United States.

Unlike Corporate McPravda USA, there are details and lots more about what Manning leaked from the Guardian here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables

[hughee99]

279. The papers had a field day with it, but releasing classified documents that

reveal your government is full of greedy, stupid, or rude people isn't "whistle blowing". Releasing evidence of war crimes isn't free pass to reveal anything else as well.

[Dragonfli]

28. It is well known that there is a rather large portion of Govt. that is above the law.

Have been for the last few regimes.
Presidents and Vice Presidents are, the entire CIA according to Obama (above even investigation), anyone from the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel and I believe investment bankers.

Obama's specific reasoning for not allowing the CIA to be investigated was because they were "following orders in good faith" when they committed crimes like systematic torture designed in N Korea to get confessions regardless of guilt (and justified by the DOJ’s OLC). It is no surprise that the blanket immunity for "following orders" would cover all military personnel as well.

They have to criminalize those that reveal the crimes committed by those deemed above the law or their proof becomes embarrassing. Imagine how embarrassed the allied leaders would have been if they gave the same "following orders in good faith" immunity to the SS and the other German officers that ordered atrocities thus shielding them from prosecution?

[OnyxCollie]

29. K&R. nt

[railsback]

40. Just get it over with and lock him up

I would like to see the prosecution make Manning reenact his crime of downloading thousands of classified files while mimicking Lady GaGa. Just a stark reminder that 'patriotism' was the last thing on this kid's mind.

[HangOnKids]

84. You Know What Was On Manning's Mind?

Really? And a Lady GaGa reference, please this site is for grown ups take your speculation elsewhere.

[railsback]

92. So, you know what was on Manning's Mind?

Really? As for Lady GaGa, that was Manning's description, not mine. I guess 'grown ups' on this site are too afraid to face reality.

[OnyxCollie]

96. This is what was on Manning's mind.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/pressfreedom/bradley_manning_statement/full_statement.mp3

Grow up and face reality.

[msanthrope]

115. The chat logs with Adrian Lamo are closer to the event, and are not

make to excuse criminal charges....I find them inherently more trustworthy.....

(02:13:02 PM) Manning:: perfect example of how not to do INFOSEC
(02:14:21 PM) Manning: listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga’s Telephone while exfiltratrating possibly the largest data spillage in american history
(02:15:03 PM) Manning: pretty simple, and unglamorous
(02:16:37 PM) Manning: *exfiltrating
(02:17:56 PM) Manning: weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counter-intelligence, inattentive signal analysis… a perfect storm



http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat/

[railsback]

154. Um, yeah

Say you were facing life in prison, you'd be writing the same bullshit.

Seems like ONLY 'grown-ups' fork over their money to purchase the Brooklyn Bridge. ROFL!

[OnyxCollie]

169. It is "grown up"

to expose the crimes and abuses of the government and face life in prison in order to inform the public, even the ignorant, ungrateful, authoritarian followers like yourself.

[railsback]

209. Ah, so its 'grown up' to have delusions of grandeur

and then cry uncontrollably when that parade gets rained on. Interesting.

[OnyxCollie]

230. You prefer to attack those who bring to light

Last edited Wed Jun 5, 2013, 06:21 AM - Edit history (1)

the corruption and abuse of a corporate-captured government.

Congratulations! You're a useful idiot for the 1%.

It's so easy to manipulate ignorant people like yourself.

On edit: This quote seemed apropos:

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." -Hermann Goering

[AnalystInParadise]

239. Wasn't it also Goering who said

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.....kind of like the people who scream war crimes incessantly with zero proof........

[HangOnKids]

101. I Never Claimed To Know What Was On His Mind

You did. "Just a stark reminder that 'patriotism' was the last thing on this kid's mind." Please remember what you said, it is tiresome to have to post your quotes.

[railsback]

157. LoL. I'm not denying it.

Good Gawd. If you felt it was such a chore to cut and paste a quote I don't deny saying, then please don't exert such energies.

[HangOnKids]

215. But you are just so likeable!

And such fun!

[msanthrope]

114. (02:14:21 PM) Manning: listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga’s Telephone while exfiltratrating possi

possibly the largest data spillage in american history

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat/

[Peace Patriot]

43. Stomping on a lowly soldier who got disgusted with our horrible forever wars...

...while the perps of the forever wars build their lieberries and get rehabbed as policy wonks, is....

[font color="red"] [font size="5"] WRONG! [/font][/font]


Peace

[Octafish]

170. That was a great books.

Joe Haldeman and George Orwell's.

Bradley Manning is great, too. He was willing to follow orders, like: "Thou Shalt Not Kill."

[Proud Public Servant]

45. Coping with Manning's crime was my job for a while

Last edited Tue Jun 4, 2013, 02:13 PM - Edit history (1)

As many have said here, what Manning did was an indiscriminate data dump. Why was that so bad? Let me tell you about my job...

After Wikileaks began releasing items, I became part of a task force assembled to cope with the fallout. We worked literally around-the-clock, since we never knew when new cables would be made public. We were concerned with one thing and one thing only: the safety of people who would be in danger in their own countries if their names were revealed.

See, this is what diplomats actually do: they build and maintain foreign contacts. And in repressive countries, many of those contacts are people like human rights activists, labor agitators, and others who get under the government's skin. They then report on their conversations with such people to Washington, using classified cables to do so. They classify the cables because news that, say, a country's leading opposition figure was meeting regularly with the U.S. counselor for political affairs is not something you want that country's government to know.

I don't participate here all that often, and most folks here don't know me. So you may have to take my word for it: I'm not a DLC-er, I'm not a hawk, I'm not a Third Way type; I'm very much just the opposite. But I will tell you right now, from the inside, that all Bradley Manning accomplished was (1) putting a lot of good people, and the diplomatic efforts they were a part of, in peril, and (2) making sure that the government would heretofore be even more secretive than it had been, and that information would be even more stoivepiped (for more on the problems of stovepiped government information, please read up on 9/11). Hero? He was at best a misguided idiot.

[RobertEarl]

55. Scale

In the big picture, did Manning cause as much damage to America as Bush and his band of criminals?

[Proud Public Servant]

60. No, of course not

Neither did the guy repeatedly broke into my condo's mailroom and stole packages last month. But that guy's still a criminal, and so is Manning.

But more to the point -- and this is the point, as far as I'm concerned -- Manning's actions did nothing to change the course we've been on since 2002 (which is why comparisons to Daniel Ellsberg are so completely misguided). If anything, his actions have led the government to double-down on secrecy, surveillance, and compartmentalization.

[RobertEarl]

64. Doubled down, eh?

You mean security was slack? Then there is no telling what info got out and who it came from. Seems Manning did us a favor by exposing the security holes?

In Manning's case he exposed the truth. Seeing Bush getting away with murder, he made the decision he would not be an accomplice.

Manning may have broke some laws. The question is intent. Bush's intent was to destroy American freedoms, that is evident. Manning was a minor soldier who stood for American ideals.

Manning sits in court while the biggest government crooks ever are allowed to walk.

That doesn't piss you off?

[Proud Public Servant]

72. Serious question

What did Manning expose?

Don't answer in generalities like "the Bush administration" or "the truth" or something like that. Point to a single, concrete piece of damning information that we have now but didn't have before the dump. Just one thing about which we can say: "that's awful, that's criminal, and we only know that because of fearless Bradley Manning."

I don't think there is one (and, as I've indicated, I've read a hell of a lot of those cables). That's what made scrambling to protect people named in those cables so particularly ironic; he'd managed to expose people who were helping us do good, while failing to bring to light anything -- anything at all -- that would help his cause (if indeed he had a cause).

[RobertEarl]

83. Well

You just stated that Manning caused no harm. Quote:

"Point to a single, concrete piece of damning information that we have now but didn't have before the dump. Just one thing about which we can say: "that's awful, that's criminal, and we only know that because of fearless Bradley Manning."

And that is not any answer the question I presented to you. I asked: Is what Manning did even comparable to what Bush did. The answer, which you have danced around is NO. What Bush did was 1,000 times worse. So why isn't Bush in court?

[Proud Public Servant]

98. "Danced around"? Oh, please.

I clearly agreed with you in my first post that Bush was worse. I think it's a scandal that no one's been held accountable for falsifying intelligence, torture, etc. That's not the issue. The issue is that Bradley Manning is a criminal, period. He also happens to be an incompetent criminal, since he didn't manage to accomplish any of his stated goals but only managed to screw up positive diplomatic efforts that most here on DU would probably support.

[OnyxCollie]

102. That is *definitely* the issue.

Yet you would rather attack the messenger.

[HangOnKids]

106. Why Are You Posting Here If You Believe This

"but only managed to screw up positive diplomatic efforts that most here on DU would probably support." So I ask again, if you believe this statement, THAT YOU posted, why are you posting here?

[ucrdem]

113. Because it's true?

Maybe you missed it? Asshat did no favors do the Obama admin or the Clinton State department, that's for damn sure. And strangely enough he's never done the least damage to Bush or Cheney or anyone in the Bush Cheney admin.

Why is that I wonder?

[HangOnKids]

120. Read Again

The poster was slamming DU for agreeing with Manning. So why does he post here, and why do I have to explain this to you?

[ucrdem]

123. Okay, I did, and you're completely misreading it. Reread it carefully. n/t

[OnyxCollie]

94. Just for starters.

Wikileaks Haiti: U.S. pushed to lower minimum wage
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20068872-503543.html

However, the Columbia Journalism Review has written up a summary of the Nation piece, recounting how American clothing makers with factories in Haiti were displeased after the government raised the minimum wage more than two and a half times the previous minimum 24 cents an hour.

WikiLeaks: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-06-03/news/30003110_1_minimum-wage-haitians-garment-workers#ixzz1ywY2AXZY

This infuriated American corporations like Hanes and Levi Strauss that pay Haitians slave wages to sew their clothes. They said they would only fork over a seven-cent-an-hour increase, and they got the State Department involved. The U.S. ambassador put pressure on Haiti’s president, who duly carved out a $3 a day minimum wage for textile companies (the U.S. minimum wage, which itself is very low, works out to $58 a day).

Haiti has about 25,000 garment workers. If you paid each of them $2 a day more, it would cost their employers $50,000 per working day, or about $12.5 million a year ... As of last year Hanes had 3,200 Haitians making t-shirts for it. Paying each of them two bucks a day more would cost it about $1.6 million a year. Hanesbrands Incorporated made $211 million on $4.3 billion in sales last year.

Thanks to U.S. intervention, the minimum was raised only to 31 cents.

Obama called on the former general chairman of the RNC to stop Spain's investigation of US torture crimes.

WikiLeaks: How U.S. tried to stop Spain's torture probe
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/25/105786/wikileaks-how-us-tried-to-stop.html

MIAMI — It was three months into Barack Obama's presidency, and the administration -- under pressure to do something about alleged abuses in Bush-era interrogation policies -- turned to a Florida senator to deliver a sensitive message to Spain:

Don't indict former President George W. Bush's legal brain trust for alleged torture in the treatment of war on terror detainees, warned Mel Martinez on one of his frequent trips to Madrid. Doing so would chill U.S.-Spanish relations.

US embassy cables: Don't pursue Guantánamo criminal case, says Spanish attorney general
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH

6. (C) As reported in SEPTEL, Senator Mel Martinez, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, met Acting FM Angel Lossada during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 15. Martinez and the Charge underscored that the prosecutions would not be understood or accepted in the U.S. and would have an enormous impact on the bilateral relationship. The Senator also asked if the GOS had thoroughly considered the source of the material on which the allegations were based to ensure the charges were not based on misinformation or factually wrong statements. Lossada responded that the GOS recognized all of the complications presented by universal jurisdiction, but that the independence of the judiciary and the process must be respected. The GOS would use all appropriate legal tools in the matter. While it did not have much margin to operate, the GOS would advise Conde Pumpido that the official administration position was that the GOS was "not in accord with the National Court." Lossada reiterated to Martinez that the executive branch of government could not close any judicial investigation and urged that this case not affect the overall relationship, adding that our interests were much broader, and that the universal jurisdiction case should not be viewed as a reflection of the GOS position.

Judd Gregg, Obama's Republican nominee for Commerce secretary, didn't like the investigations either.

US embassy cables: Don't pursue Guantánamo criminal case, says Spanish attorney general
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH

4. (C) As reported in REF A, Senator Judd Gregg, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, raised the issue with Luis Felipe Fernandez de la Pena, Director General Policy Director for North America and Europe during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 13. Senator Gregg expressed his concern about the case. Fernandez de la Pena lamented this development, adding that judicial independence notwithstanding, the MFA disagreed with efforts to apply universal jurisdiction in such cases.

Why the aversion? To protect Bushco, of course!

US embassy cables: Spanish prosecutor weighs Guantánamo criminal case against US officials
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/200177

The fact that this complaint targets former Administration legal officials may reflect a "stepping-stone" strategy designed to pave the way for complaints against even more senior officials.

WikiLeaks: Iraqi children in U.S. raid shot in head, U.N. says
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/08/31/122789/wikileaks-iraqi-children-in-us.html#storylink=cpy

A U.S. diplomatic cable made public by WikiLeaks provides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi.

The unclassified cable, which was posted on WikiLeaks' website last week, contained questions from a United Nations investigator about the incident, which had angered local Iraqi officials, who demanded some kind of action from their government. U.S. officials denied at the time that anything inappropriate had occurred.

But Philip Alston, the U.N.'s special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said in a communication to American officials dated 12 days after the March 15, 2006, incident that autopsies performed in the Iraqi city of Tikrit showed that all the dead had been handcuffed and shot in the head. Among the dead were four women and five children. The children were all 5 years old or younger.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

~snip~

Alston said he could provide no further information on the incident. "The tragedy," he said, "is that this elaborate system of communications is in place but the (U.N.) Human Rights Council does nothing to follow up when states ignore issues raised with them."

US diplomats spied on UN leadership
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un

Washington is running a secret intelligence campaign targeted at the leadership of the United Nations, including the secretary general, Ban Ki-moon and the permanent security council representatives from China, Russia, France and the UK.

A classified directive which appears to blur the line between diplomacy and spying was issued to US diplomats under Hillary Clinton's name in July 2009, demanding forensic technical details about the communications systems used by top UN officials, including passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications.

It called for detailed biometric information "on key UN officials, to include undersecretaries, heads of specialised agencies and their chief advisers, top SYG [secretary general] aides, heads of peace operations and political field missions, including force commanders" as well as intelligence on Ban's "management and decision-making style and his influence on the secretariat". A parallel intelligence directive sent to diplomats in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi said biometric data included DNA, fingerprints and iris scans.

Washington also wanted credit card numbers, email addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers and even frequent-flyer account numbers for UN figures and "biographic and biometric information on UN Security Council permanent representatives".

http://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/08/09TRIPOLI677.html

CLASSIFIED BY: Joan Polaschik, Charge d'Affaires, U.S. Embassy
Tripoli, Department of State.
REASON: 1.4 (b), (d)
¶1. (C) CODEL McCain discussed security, counterterrorism, and
civil-nuclear cooperation during August 14 meetings with Libyan
leader Muammar al-Qadhafi and his son, National Security Advisor
Muatassim al-Qadhafi, stressing the need for Libya to fulfill
its WMD-related commitments and to approve a Section 505
end-user agreement in order to move forward on bilateral
military and civil-nuclear engagement. While Muatassim
al-Qadhafi reiterated long-standing Libyan requests for security
assurances from the United States and emphasized Libya's
interest in the purchase of U.S. lethal and non-lethal military
equipment, Muammar al-Qadhafi was notably silent on these
subjects. The elder Qadhafi made a point of expressing his
satisfaction with the improved U.S relationship and his hope
that the relationship would continue to flourish. CODEL
McCain's discussion of the Megrahi case was reported ref A. End
summary.

THE MEETING

¶2. (SBU) CODEL McCain (R-Az), including Senator Joe Lieberman
(I-CT), Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Senator Susan Collins
(R-SC) and Senate Armed Services Committee Staffer Richard
Fontaine held back-to-back meetings August 14 with Libyan
National Security Advisor Muatassim al-Qadhafi and Libyan leader
Muammar Al-Qadhafi. Libyan officials NSC Director Dr. Hend
Siala, MFA Department of Americas Secretary Ahmed Fituri and MFA
Office of Americas Director Mohamed Matari also attended the
meetings, as did Charge and Pol/Econ Chief (notetaker).

MUATASSIM MEETING SECURITY FOCUSED

¶3. (C) Characterizing the overall pace of the bilateral
relationship as excellent, CODEL McCain opened its August 14
meeting with National Security Advisor Muatassim al-Qadhafi by
noting the drastic change that the relationship had undergone
over the last five years. "We never would have guessed ten
years ago that we would be sitting in Tripoli, being welcomed by
a son of Muammar al-Qadhafi," remarked Senator Lieberman. He
stated that the situation demonstrated that change is possible
and expressed appreciation that Libya had kept its promises to
give up its WMD program and renounce terrorism. Lieberman
called Libya an important ally in the war on terrorism, noting
that common enemies sometimes make better friends. The Senators
recognized Libya's cooperation on counterterrorism and conveyed
that it was in the interest of both countries to make the
relationship stronger. They encouraged Libya to sign the Highly
Enriched Uranium transfer agreement by August 15 in order to
fulfill its obligation to transfer its nuclear spent fuel to
Russia for treatment and disposal. (Note: The Libyan Government
subsequently informed us of its intent to sign the agreement on
August 17 and has begun taking good-faith steps to do so (ref
B). End note.)

[Ash_F]

200. LALALALA WE CANT HEAR YOU!!!

Did I nail it?

[KoKo]

260. +1 THE LIST...it should be a Stickie to any Manning post here on DU.

I think those who keep asking that question in thread after thread getting jollies repeating over and over "What did Manning Accomplish?" are the usual disruption experts/ trolls seeking to distract on any post about Manning. A few others need to do the Manning disinfo/distraction as part of their employment.

[GeorgeGist]

233. Is any of this true?

http://www.bradleymanning.org/learn-more/what-did-wikileaks-reveal

[randome]

75. It pisses ME off. But what Manning released had nothing to do with Bush.

Nor did the hundreds of informants' names he released, jeopardizing their lives.

Even Assange said of the Apache helicopter video that it looked like those guys who were killed were carrying RPGs.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[CharlesInCharge]

190. You may be a public servant, but Ellsberg disagrees

With you 100%. I'll take his word over yours any day.

[MADem]

73. You certainly have my sympathy.

You're not the only "proud public servant" on the board, though it may seem that way at times. We have a lot of people who have worked in varying branches of government, many careerists, too.

As someone who has been on fast-reaction crisis management teams, I can relate to the need to spin up an emergency action plan and work constantly, trying to beat back the fires that keep springing up. It's exhausting. I agree with your breakdown of the results of Manning's misadventures, too. I suspect he'll have a long, long time to contemplate his rash acts.

[RobertEarl]

107. Thanks

You just pointed out one of our biggest problems. That problem being what we public have with our servants.

Our servants no longer serve the public, like Manning did, but rather serve the state. It's what allows people like Bush to have power. Don't take it personal, but that is what we the public see happening. Bush is our evidence.

[MADem]

142. You love to follow me round, don't you?

Manning didn't "serve the public." He served up a load of shit he didn't even read, and he put the lives of dissidents in foreign countries in jeopardy.

He served his own sense of hubris, he wanted to be one of the cool kids, and he slept through some of his key training.

He'll have plenty of time to think about how "cool" it was to get people jailed--he might even start to empathize with their plight.

[CharlesInCharge]

191. If Manning is convicted and Bush remains free, this country

is done. It's over; stick a fork in it.

[MADem]

199. That's just a silly thing to say.

Bush hasn't even been charged with a crime. Plenty of us think he's guilty of a few things--abject stupidity, if nothing else--but he hasn't been indicted and, like it, or not, that's unlikely to happen.

Since Manning has already entered 10 guilty pleas (that was way back in February), it's likely he'll be convicted. The country wasn't done or over back then, and they won't be if he's convicted on the remainder of the charges.

So I think I'll keep my fork.

[CharlesInCharge]

203. Bush has the blood of (at a minimum) 100,000 innocent poeple on his hands. Go

ahead and keep your fork. Not me, though.

Try Manning for revealing the truth about war crimes.

Let the war criminals go free.

What was that about 'silly'?

[MADem]

208. Call me when he's indicted.

I said I didn't like his actions, but if you think anything's going to come of them in terms of indictments, I have a bridge for sale in Washington State--it's a fixer upper so I'll let it go cheap. That's the silliness, right there, to "demand" that Bush go on trial. It ain't gonna happen. Never, ever, ever, to quote that young pop star. Hold your breath, stomp your foot, shake your fist, write dramatic paragraphs on the internet-- it still won't happen.

Manning endangered the lives of people helping the USG. Some disappeared, some were arrested and jailed. He didn't bother to read what he dumped. And there's nothing "silly" about that. That's some serious shit.

And he's entered ten guilty pleas already--so if he's not guilty of anything, someone forgot to tell him about that, because even he apparently conceded ten of 22 charges.

[CharlesInCharge]

210. If it were not for the original sin of Operation Shocking and Awful, Manning

would not have served in Iraq, witnessed war crimes and crimes against humanity and made his decision to blow the whistle.

Let the war criminals go free but punish anyone who blows the whistle on the war crimes.

USA! USA! USA!

[MADem]

211. If Manning hadn't volunteered to join the Army, he never would have served either.

He has a part to play in his own misfortune, which is why he has entered guilty pleas to ten charges already.

This isn't about USA USA USA but if you want to be simplistic, go right ahead.

[CharlesInCharge]

212. Well, if you go back to my original post that began this little sub-thread

excursion, you'll remember I said letting Bush go free while punishing Manning means the US is over and done with.

So I think USA! USA! USA! is quite a propos.

[MADem]

216. Well, he didn't do it on his own.

As I have said elsewhere, Bush obtained "cover" from Congress before he embarked on his misadventures. He got "permission" to do what he did. That's why he won't be standing before the bar of justice except in the fertile imaginations of wishful thinkers.

Manning thought forgiveness was easier to obtain than permission, and as it turns out, he was wrong about that. He's going to pay for his own misadventures.

The country has moved on from Bush and his cronies. It's not "over and done with," it is simply "done with" the Bush era. Cheney and the rest still keep their heads down, for the most part, and they do that because they know they aren't wanted.

[CharlesInCharge]

218. Your Cheney and my Cheney are two quite different monsters. The last time

I checked Cheney was bragging that he'd authorized water boarding and taunting anyone to do anything about it.

You want to call that "keep their heads down," be my guest.

[MADem]

219. Well, you must be following the guy closely.

I watch the news, I read the papers; the rare occasion there's any coverage of him, it's in section B or C, tucked in the back in the section called Nobody Cares Anymore. Maybe the Drudge "go-to" publications cover him...but who reads those rags? Not me. And I haven't seen him opining on television--but then, I don't watch Fox.

[CharlesInCharge]

220. Not Fox. Truthout. Here ya go:

http://archive.truthout.org/cheney-admits-war-crimes-media-yawns-obama-turns-other-cheek56924

Cheney appeared on ABC with Jonathan Karl, btw. IOW, mainstream national media.

[MADem]

221. Good grief, that's an advocacy site read by less than one percent of the country.

That's not "mainstream" media.

And did you check your dates? That was more than THREE YEARS ago! Tempus fugit, I suppose, but you're really using the Wayback Machine when you pull stuff like that up.

Cheney Admits to War Crimes, Media Yawns, Obama Turns the Other Cheek
Monday 15 February 2010

No one in the USA, save extreme partisans, give a shit what Cheney is doing. He's jumped the shark.

The last time anyone covered him was last year, when he got a heart transplant, for goodness' sake.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/vice-president-cheney-has-heart-transplant/2012/03/24/gIQAYYcgYS_story.html

Former vice president Dick Cheney, who has suffered five heart attacks since his late 30s, underwent a heart transplant Saturday after more than 20 months on a transplant list, according to his office.

“Although the former Vice President and his family do not know the identity of the donor, they will be forever grateful for this lifesaving gift,” Cheney aide Kara Ahern said in a statement issued Saturday night. Ahern said Cheney “is thankful to the teams of doctors and other medical professionals at Inova Fairfax and George Washington University Hospital for their continued outstanding care.”

Cheney, 71, was recovering Saturday in the intensive care unit of Inova Fairfax Hospital in the Falls Church area, Ahern said.

Cheney, who served as vice president under President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2009, suffered his first heart attack when he was 37. In 1988, Cheney underwent quadruple-bypass surgery. He also had two artery-clearing angioplasties and had a heart-monitoring device implanted. The device was removed in 2007.

[CharlesInCharge]

259. Truthout reports on an appearance by Cheney on ABC's

news program.

The way you move the goal posts is highly revealing.

First you say it's only Fox and Drudge where Cheney's words are reported. Presented with the fact of a presentation on ABC News (as reported on Truthout and many other progressive media vehicles!), you then don't retract your initial assertion (about Fox and Drudge) but simply raise the issue of dates.

People who care about justice have not forgotten about Cheney's conduct. People who care about justice demand an investigation and charges if appropriate. And there's no statute of limitations for murder or for war crimes.

[MADem]

305. Three YEARS ago. Not last week, not last month, not even last YEAR.

Come off it--three years ago is a lifetime in politics. The guy had a heart transplant since then.

Let's not talk history, let's talk current events.

When Cheney is indicted, you get back to me. I rather doubt you'll ever do that, because you'll read his obituary at "Truthout" before you ever read of his indictment for "murder or war crimes."

That's just the way it is.

[CharlesInCharge]

325. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes or for murder. - nt

Last edited Wed Jun 5, 2013, 06:01 PM - Edit history (1)

[MADem]

328. But there is one for what constitutes "news"--and a cite from three years ago is not news. nt

[ucrdem]

104. Thanks. That's exactly why I've thought all along that wikileaks is bad news

and intent on sabotaging the Obama administration specifically, like they sabotaged the 2010 climate talks in Copenhagen with that well-timed email "leak." How anyone could think wikileaks isn't part of a RW intel outfit I don't know. I can't see how anyone would consider Assange and Manning as left-wing heroes, either, but apparently some do. Go figure.

Anyway thanks for the reality check and please consider posting this as an OP, cheers.

[moondust]

140. Thank you.

Completely agree that there is much too much at stake for anyone to be indiscriminately spilling the government's guts to the whole wide world including Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, Pakistan, Syria, al Qaeda, Taliban, you name it. And THEY are not going to reveal how much they learned or how much of a strategic or tactical edge they gained from the dumps. Or how many informants or compromised NATO troops were--or will be--lost thanks to intelligence data mined from the dumps.

Manning is not a whistleblower.

Development of a paid or unpaid "leaking industry," as Wikileaks seems to have in mind, is a very bad idea.

Thank you for your service.

[Cha]

148. Thank you, Proud Public Servant, it is really beneficial

to get your perspective.

Thank you.

[Number23]

161. Thank you so much for your post.

[dreamnightwind]

213. The Arab Spring was certainly inspired

in no small part, by people learning more about the activities of their governments and ours from the Manning-supplied documents. You can believe what you want about whether or not that is a good thing. In my mind the people should be able to make decisions based on what their governments are actually doing, not what their governments say they are doing, so I think that was an enormous accomplishment.

And about the second "accomplishment" you mentioned, that this kind of leak caused our government to stovepipe its information and intelligence communications, that is precisely the method to the madness that is Assange. His expectation was exactly that, and he has spoken at length about it. He is attempting to disable our run-away security establishment by leaking, and therefore choking it on its own reactively strengthened secrecy requirements, so that it becomes ineffective. Basically he is attempting to monkey-wrench the whole machine. It's a very radical idea Assange has. It's probably a little bold for my taste, but then I'm a coward behind a keyboard and he's putting his life on the line.

The people you want protected by not revealing our secrets, what are they up to? There were a lot of insights from the leaked documents that showed how we propped up oppressors for corporate interest, rather than supported freedom and democracy like we claim to do. Labor activists and labor interests? Are you serious? Our government vigorously works AGAINST those interests. If we have such assets, we're only using them as convenient ways to disrupt regimes we oppose, in places such as Iran. The much larger reality is that our government and the tentacles of its security apparatus install and maintain oppressive regimes in every corner of this planet, actively working with the oppressors against the interests of the citizens of those countries, and of ours, most especially when it comes to labor issues. If you've read so many of the documents like you claim, you already know this, or your mind is just not tuned to perceive it.

You are way way off base in your claims that nothing was accomplished. It is possible to make a valid argument that the methods were reckless and too broad. It is not, in my opinion, possible to claim that little was accomplished by the leaks.

[leveymg]

318. Can you explain why in 3 yrs there hasn't been a single verified victim of the "data dump"?

If there were, surely, it would be referenced in the Manning charging document.

[rhett o rick]

70. A post like this really gets under the skin of the conservatives.

My right wing brother in law used many of the same arguments used here by posters here claiming to be Democrats.

Some want to argue that Manning wasnt a whistle-blower. That's a classic distraction. It doesnt matter what he is called the conservative hate him. They also hate Occupy, Wikileaks, CT, and anything that tries to speak truth to power. They do like their authoritarian masters. Sadly they worry more about Manning than they do Cheney.

[HangOnKids]

74. But But But Some Day They Will Have Their Boot On Someones Throat

So they can not criticize it now. Sad, lonely, cowardly people.

[rhett o rick]

82. Classic authoritarian behavior. Find someone small to pick-on. nm

[HangOnKids]

85. Pity them when the small person turns out to be so much bigger

I relish that kind of turn about.

[kenny blankenship]

103. They can stand with the torturers and mass murderers

It's getting too clear what the modern Democratic Party is made of. It's not pretty.

[Octafish]

119. They're not very Democratic.

At least the kind of Democrat We -- you and me and We the People -- used to know.

dem·o·crat·ic (dem-uh-krat-ik)

adjective

1.
pertaining to or of the nature of democracy or a democracy.
2.
pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all: democratic treatment.
3.
advocating or upholding democracy.
4.
( initial capital letter ) Politics.
a.
of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the Democratic party.
b.
of, pertaining to, or belonging to the Democratic-Republican party.
Also, dem·o·crat·i·cal.

Origin:
1595–1605; < French démocratique or Medieval Latin dēmocraticus, both < Greek dēmokratikós, equivalent to dēmokrat ( ía ) (see democracy) + -ikos -ic

Related forms
dem·o·crat·i·cal·ly, adverb
an·ti·dem·o·crat·ic, adjective
an·ti·dem·o·crat·i·cal, adjective
an·ti·dem·o·crat·i·cal·ly, adverb
half-dem·o·crat·ic, adjective

SOURCE: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democratic

Or the kind we oldsters saw lead us to peace and prosperity.

[rhett o rick]

77. Seven Myths about Bradly Manning.

An interesting article in The Nation Magazine.

One of the myths:

Although the US government has not embraced much responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who have died in the past ten years, it is frequently assumed (Myth #5 ) that Manning’s leaks have gotten people killed or at least damaged US national interests. But in the three-year span since these leaks came out, there is no evidence of a single civilian or soldier or even spy being harmed by the documents’ release. (I've written at greater length for TomDispatch about the accusations of Manning and Wikileaks having "blood on their hands" come loudest from the same pols and hacks who backed the Iraq War and Obama's Afghan Surge.) Yes, two US ambassadors were recalled from Latin American countries, but this is hardly the diplomatic Armageddon that then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton luridly promised us.

Read more: http://www.thenation.com/blog/174622/seven-myths-about-bradley-manning#ixzz2VGwkNcAm

Of course the conservatives dont read The Nation but gravitate to the more conservative publications.

[KoKo]

262. An Excellent Point.

"Of course the conservatives dont read The Nation but gravitate to the more conservative publications.

And, it's obvious in many of the replies on this thread and others about Manning that the same exact Talking Points are used over and over to disrupt and distract and also to claim superior "insider knowledge" when who the heck can verify them under an anonymous name on a Message Board.

I wonder why they go to such efforts to distract and disrupt posts about Manning and Assange? Why would Discussion about Manning and Assange be so important to disrupt on nothing but a Message Board on the internet? Is it because it has the name "Democratic" attached to it? Or is it deeper than that?

[Fire Walk With Me]

87. Solidarity with PFC Manning! n/t

[Octafish]

282. Me, too. OTOH, the leaders who lied America into war aren't getting deserved attention these days.

After all, they're the ones who caused the mess in Iraq, not Bradley Manning.

Someone in Kuala Lumpur back in '12 gave a damn:

War Tribunal Finds Bush, Cheney Guilty of War Crimes

Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal orders reparations be given to torture victims

May 13, 2012, Common Dreams
Common Dreams staff

Former US President George W Bush, his Vice-President Dick Cheney and six other members of his administration have been found guilty of war crimes by a tribunal in Malaysia.

Bush, Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and five of their legal advisers were tried in their absence and convicted on Saturday.

Victims of torture told a panel of five judges in Kuala Lumpur of their suffering at the hands of US soldiers and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Among the evidence, Briton Moazzam Begg, an ex-Guantanamo detainee, said he was beaten, put in a hood and left in solitary confinement. Iraqi woman Jameelah Abbas Hameedi said she was stripped and humiliated in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison.

Transcripts of the five-day trial will be sent to the chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, the United Nations and the Security Council.

A member of the prosecution team, Professor Francis Boyle of Illinois University’s College of Law, said he was hopeful that Bush and his colleagues could soon find themselves facing similar trials elsewhere in the world.

CONTINUED...

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/05/13

Perhaps, one day, a significant number of Amerians will turn off Corporate McPravda and the nation can clear the docket of the real traitors: the Have-More deadbeats and warmonger set.

[NaturalHigh]

99. Anybody who makes it through basic training...

knows the importance of safeguarding classified information and the penalties for wrongfully disclosing it. Bradley Manning knew he was committing a serious crime.

Whatever his motivations, he has to answer for the crimes of which he is accused. He's not a "whistleblower," and he's certainly not a hero.

[BenzoDia]

108. Of course he should be on trial. He broke the law. Simple as that.

[Octafish]

330. Presidenture Poppy Bush and Secretary Cheney broke the law by lying America into war in 1990.

Not many people talk about it, but they first armed Saddam Hussein using billions, courtesy of the American taxpayer. Then, they lied in order to get their chums' claws on the only thing they truly love, oil

It's a repeat of teh same story 22 years later, as Pretzeldent Bush the Lesser and then-Veep Cheney when they lied the United States into war in 2003.

They ALL should be on trial. Simple as that.

[lamp_shade]

127. He's a criminal... sweet pudgy little pink cheeks and all. n/t

[HangOnKids]

139. Did you come up with that all by yourself?

[stevenleser]

182. As opposed to "Did you come up with that all by yourself"? You think that's original? nt

[HangOnKids]

183. Are we debating originality here Steve?

I never claimed what I said was original, I just asked a question.

[stevenleser]

184. Your question was about originality. nt

[HangOnKids]

185. No it wasn't

I asked a question about what they posted. Please don't be pedantic.

[stevenleser]

189. I'm happy to let DUers interpret whether "Did you come up with that all by yourself?" addresses

the originality of that person's post.

[HangOnKids]

205. Knock Yourself Out Steve

Take a farking poll. Let's see how far that gets you. Okie Dokie.

[KansDem]

130. Agreed, starting with Bush and Cheney...

However, it's their sandbox so we gotta play by their rules, no matter how hypocritical.

[Octafish]

331. Who was Really “Aiding the Enemy?”

Bradley Manning and the Fight for Democracy

Who was Really “Aiding the Enemy?”

by NORMAN SOLOMON
CounterPunch, June 5, 2013

Of all the charges against Bradley Manning, the most pernicious — and revealing — is “aiding the enemy.”

A blogger at The New Yorker, Amy Davidson, raised a pair of big questions that now loom over the courtroom at Fort Meade and over the entire country:

* “Would it aid the enemy, for example, to expose war crimes committed by American forces or lies told by the American government?”

* “In that case, who is aiding the enemy — the whistleblower or the perpetrators themselves?”

When the deceptive operation of the warfare state can’t stand the light of day, truth-tellers are a constant hazard. And culpability must stay turned on its head.

That’s why accountability was upside-down when the U.S. Army prosecutor laid out the government’s case against Bradley Manning in an opening statement: “This is a case about a soldier who systematically harvested hundreds of thousands of classified documents and dumped them onto the Internet, into the hands of the enemy — material he knew, based on his training, would put the lives of fellow soldiers at risk.”

If so, those fellow soldiers have all been notably lucky; the Pentagon has admitted that none died as a result of Manning’s leaks in 2010. But many of his fellow soldiers lost their limbs or their lives in U.S. warfare made possible by the kind of lies that the U.S. government is now prosecuting Bradley Manning for exposing.

In the real world, as Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, prosecution for leaks is extremely slanted. “Let’s apply the government’s theory in the Manning case to one of the most revered journalists in Washington: Bob Woodward, who has become one of America’s richest reporters, if not the richest, by obtaining and publishing classified information far more sensitive than anything WikiLeaks has ever published,” Greenwald wrote in January.

He noted that “one of Woodward’s most enthusiastic readers was Osama bin Laden,” as a 2011 video from al-Qaeda made clear. And Greenwald added that “the same Bob Woodward book (Obama’s Wars) that Osama bin Laden obviously read and urged everyone else to read disclosed numerous vital national security secrets far more sensitive than anything Bradley Manning is accused of leaking. Doesn’t that necessarily mean that top-level government officials who served as Woodward’s sources, and the author himself, aided and abetted al-Qaida?”

CONTINUED...

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/05/who-was-really-aiding-the-enemy/

Integrity trumps eternity.

[Smarmie Doofus]

138. 1. Totally agree and K and R. 2. Slightly off topic: does anyone have a relevant link

... to info re. the identities of the people on the street who were gun downed in the Collateral Murder video? (Aside from the Reuters photographers, that is.)

Thx.

[deurbano]

143. Daniel Ellsberg talking about Manning case on The Cycle (MSNBC): link from Charles Pierce's column

Watch the whole thing, if possible.... but at least the 5-6 min., starting at the 4 min. mark.

Ellsberg says the info HE leaked was "Top Secret," and he didn't even bother looking at merely "Secret" stuff when he was in the Pentagon. Ellsberg says Manning also routinely had access to "Top Secret" (and above) communication and intelligence, but only released unclassified and "Secret" info.. and that he (Ellsberg) was surprised at the amount of criminality that was revealed in the merely "Secret" info... which must mean that sort of behavior is routine, now. (Which is not a positive reflection on the direction in which our government has been moving.)


Also… according to Ellsberg, Manning realized what he ought to do by 22 while it took Ellsberg until he was 40.

And… If Bradley Manning had committed atrocities instead of exposing them, he would almost certainly be a free man, today.

[duhneece]

144. Berrigan's support of Manning means alot to me

It confirmed (at least for now) my belief that Manning revealed war crimes and that makes him a hero in my book.

[WillyT]

145. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! - K & R !!!

[felix_numinous]

159. So what does the government expect

people to do when they witness illegal activities? Is there a procedure in place for people who are witnesses that does not endanger individuals before they go to trial?

If there is a workable procedure in place, then I agree Bradley Manning was out of line, but there is NOTHING else he could have done besides becoming part of the problem.

He is a man of conscience and is to be admired.

[John2]

166. Have any of you

served in the military? He took an Oath and was bound by the military code of justice. If he felt, that he could no longer carry out his duties, then he should have applied as a conscientious objector to the War. Apparently he had access to secret information as an intelligence personnel. I would not have done what he did. I would have applied to get out, and went through my Chain of Command. He could have went to a Priest.

What, I'm curious about, was how this one private was able to take these files off Base and pass his supervisor. When I was in the military, I had privates under me, and I always supervised them. If one of my privates would have done something like this, it would have reflected on me. So why isn't his supervisors responsible for this private? If any of my privates witnessed an illegal act, they were taught to report it to me and then I would have sent it up the chain of command. If there was a cover up, too many people would have known and I would have supported my soldier, if the chain tried to cover up. He could have gotten out and reported it to the Press. There would have been an investigation, that way any whistle blower could have been protected from the chain of command. I'm surprised a PFC had so much access to secret information without supervision.

[MADem]

222. He didn't take anything off base. He opened a backdoor and transferred files.

It wasn't like Fawn Hall's girdles full of classified. We are in the 21st century.

Here, in his own words--this is how he did it ('bradass87' is his internet handle in this convo):

(12:15:11 PM) bradass87: hypothetical question: if you had free reign (sic) over classified networks for long periods of time ... say, 8–9 months ... and you saw incredible things, awful things ... things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC ... what would you do? ...

(12:21:24 PM) bradass87: say ... a database of half a million events during the iraq war ... from 2004 to 2009 ... with reports, date time groups, lat-lon locations, casualty figures ...? or 260,000 state department cables from embassies and consulates all over the world, explaining how the first world exploits the third, in detail, from an internal perspective? ...

(12:26:09 PM) bradass87: lets just say *someone* i know intimately well, has been penetrating US classified networks, mining data like the ones described ... and been transferring that data from the classified networks over the “air gap” onto a commercial network computer ... sorting the data, compressing it, encrypting it, and uploading it to a crazy white haired aussie who can't seem to stay in one country very long =L ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning#Disclosure_of_classified_material

[cstanleytech]

175. I believe there is already something in place Manning could have used which is

to contact the Inspect General and or to contact a member or members of congress, why he choose to ignore that route and go the route he went I do not understand because if he had gone that route he would probably have been protected from criminal prosecution.

[sabrina 1]

163. Another hero, who like Manning, would not sacrifice his humanity. He rescued the two children

who were wounded in the video released by Manning, a video the military refused to give to the press for two years when they asked for it to try to understand why two newsmen had been killed:

[tblue]

207. Awesome!

Bless his heart!!!

[KoKo]

266. Yes, indeed...Important Post...thanks Sabrina.

[johnnyreb]

172. Almost Gone by Graham Nash and James Raymond (Manning song)

Thanks for the thread, Octafish!

[HangOnKids]

214. Most Excellent Video Johnnyreb

Thank you for the video! Graham Nash fucking rocks.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

174. Solidarity with Manning!

Thank you Octafish -- always a poster I look forward to reading.

[CharlesInCharge]

178. Bravo! - nt

[Riftaxe]

181. Nope, Bradley Manning should be on trial

the evidence is overwhelmingly against him.

I understand that he has a few problems mentally but while that should be accounted for in sentencing it should not influence the decision on his act.

Or was he just sleeping while taking oath of enlistment...

[CharlesInCharge]

192. I'll bet you would have been A-OK with jailing

Ellsberg too. For all the same reasons.

[idwiyo]

187. K&R

[Niceguy1]

225. if manning was the patriot

That people claim he is he woul d have contacted the IG or a congressman, which is far easier than the route he took. He was acting out of anger towards the army, not out of patriotism.

[Octafish]

336. Col. Ted Westhusing went that route and for his trouble ended up dead.

Col. Westhusing was in charge of training the new Iraqi army and overseeing civilian contractors.
He is remembered as a good man, a brilliant man who followed the Cadet Code:
"I will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do.”



Col. Westhusing was the Army's chief ethicist and someone who suspected something was wrong with David Petraeus, way back when. Then, just when he was about to come home to his loving wife and family, he became a suicide.

Is David Petraeus Dirty? Ted Westheusing Said So, and Then He Shot Himself

By Melina Hussein Ripcoco, Brilliant at Breakfast
Alternet.org
April 8, 2008

Ted Westhusing, was a champion basketball player at Jenks High School in Tulsa Oklahoma. A driven kid with a strong work ethic, he would show up at the gym at 7AM to throw 100 practice shots before school. He was driven academically too, becoming a National Merritt Scholarship finalist. His career through West Point and straight into overseas service was sterling, and by 2000 he had enrolled in Emory University to earn his doctorate in Philosophy. His dissertation was on honor and the ethics of war, with the opening containing the following passage: "Born to be a warrior, I desire these answers not just for philosophical reasons, but for self-knowledge." Would that all military commanders took such an interest in the study of ethics and morality and what our conduct in times of war says about our development as human beings. Would that any educational system in this country taught ethics, decision making, or even political science that's not part of an advanced degree anymore.

Ted Westhusing, the soldier, philosopher and ethicist, was given a guaranteed lifetime teaching position and West Point by the time he had finished with his service and his education. he felt like he could do more for his country by trying to shape the minds coming out of the academy that were the ones that would be military commanders. He had settled into that life with his wife and kids, when in 2004 he volunteered for active duty in Iraq, feeling like the experience would help his teaching. He had missed combat in his active duty and it seemed like an important piece for someone who not only philosophized about war, but who was also preparing the military's future leaders.

But more than that, he was sure that the Iraq mission was a just one; he supported the cause and he bought the information that was put in front of him. Considering that vials of powder were being tossed around hearings by the highest level of military commanders how could he not? This was a man who was so steeped in the patriotism of idealistic military fervor that he barely could fit in regular society. His whole being was dedicated to this path, and he was proud to serve his country.

Once in Iraq, he found himself straddling the fence between a questioning philosopher and an unquestioning soldier. Westhusing had thought he was freeing a country in bondage, keeping America safe from a horrible threat, and spreading democracy to a grateful people. But the reality of what was happening in this out of control war was too much for him. His mission was to oversee one of the most important tasks left from the war; retraining the Iraqi military by overseeing the private contractors that had been put in charge of it.

As the assignment went on he found that everywhere he looked he was seeing corrupt contractors doing shoddy work, abusing people, and stealing from the government. These contractors were being paid to do many of the jobs that would normally be done by a regulated military, and they bore out the worst fears of those who don't believe in outsourcing such vital work. He responded to the corruption that he saw by reporting the problems up the line, but the response from his commanding officers was disappointing. He had, for much of his career, idolized military commanders, and in that assignment he found himself with some of the military's most famous faces, doing the most important job, but he was terribly disappointed and alarmed to realize that they were greedy and corrupt themselves.

CONTINUED...

http://www.alternet.org/story/81678/is_david_petraeus_dirty_ted_westhusing_said_so,_and_then_he_shot_himself

COMPLETE ORIGINAL ARTICLE: http://www.ripcoco.com/2008/04/is-david-petraeus-dirty-ted-westheusing.html

Ask yourself: Who is worse? Bradley Manning, who tried to stop illegal war...



...or George W Bush, the kind of person who lied America into war and then said "money trumps peace."?

[Swagman]

226. the ignorance being disseminated about Bradley Manning is embarrassing

to start with he is now on trial and hasn't been found guilty of a thing so all these claims he 'stole' documents and he is guilty are a disgrace.

No-one on DU has been able to quote what law Manning is alleged to have broken although there is a claim he "aided the enemy".
I have seen no proof of that yet.

There is no law in any US military organisation that requires a soldier to remain silent about a crime.

He is also being punished before he has even faced a court.

[hack89]

236. He has pled guilty to ten charges

so he is definitely guilty of something.

[AnalystInParadise]

238. LOL another one who doesnt know anything about military law

Manning exposed no crimes. And since you asked...here is an appetizer......Manning broke several more laws and regulations, but this ought to help with comprehension.

CHARGE I: VIOLATION OF THE UCMJ, ARTICLE 92

SPECIFICATION 1: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, between on or about 19 November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: Paragraph 4-6(k), Army Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007, by wrongfully introducing a classified video of a military operation filmed at or near Baghdad, Iraq, on or about 12 July 2007, onto his personal computer, a non-secure information system.

SPECIFICATION 2: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, between on or about 19 November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: Paragraph 4-6(k), Army Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007, by wrongfully introducing more than 50 classified United States Department of State cables onto his personal computer, a non-secure information system.

SPECIFICATION 3: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, between on or about 19 November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: Paragraph 4-6(k), Army Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007, by wrongfully introducing a classified Microsoft Office PowerPoint presentation onto his personal computer, a non-secure information system.

SPECIFICATION 4: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, between on or about 19 November 2009 and on or about 3 April 2010, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: Paragraph 4-5(a)(3), Army Regulation 25-2, dated 24 October 2007, by wrongfully adding unauthorized software to a Secret Internet Protocol Router network computer.

CHARGE II: VIOLATION OF THE UCMJ, ARTICLE 134

SPECFICATION 1: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 19 November 2009 and on or about 5 April 2010, have unauthorized possession of photographs relating to the national defense, to wit: a classified video of a military operation filmed at or near Baghdad, Iraq, on or about 12 July 2007, and did willfully communicate, deliver and transmit the video, or cause the video to be communicated, delivered, and transmitted, to a person not entitled to receive it, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 793(e), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

SPECIFICATION 2: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 19 November 2009 and on or about 5 April 2010, knowingly exceed his authorized access on a Secret Internet Protocol Router network computer and obtain information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive Order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense, to wit: a classified video of a military operation filmed at or near Baghdad, Iraq, on or about 12 July 2007, and did willfully communicate, deliver and transmit the video, or cause the video to be communicated, delivered and transmitted, to a person not entitled to receive it, with reason to believe that such information could be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of any foreign nation, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 1030(a)(1), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

SPECIFICATION 3: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 13 January 2010 and on or about 19 February 2010, knowingly exceed his authorized access on a Secret Internet Protocol Router network computer and obtain information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive Order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of foreign relations, to wit: a classified United States Department of State cable titled “Reykjavik 13,” and did willfully communicate, deliver and transmit the cable, or cause the cable to be communicated, delivered, and transmitted, to a person not entitled to receive it, with reason to believe that such information could be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of any foreign nation, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 1030(a)(1), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

SPECIFICATION 4: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 19 November 2009 and on or about 24 May 2010, knowingly exceed his authorized access on a Secret Internet Protocol Router network computer and obtain information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive Order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of foreign relations, to wit: more than 50 classified United States Department of State cables, and did willfully communicate, deliver and transmit the cables, or cause the cables to be communicated, delivered, and transmitted, to a person not entitled to receive them, with reason to believe that such information could be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of any foreign nation, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 1030(a)(1), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

SPECIFICATION 5: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 19 November 2009 and on or about 5 April 2010, intentionally exceed his authorized access on a Secret Internet Protocol Router network computer and obtain information from the United States Department of Defense, to wit: a classified video of a military operation filmed at or near Baghdad, Iraq, on or about 12 July 2007, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 1030(a)(2), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

SPECIFICATION 6: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 13 January 2010 and on or about 19 February 2010, intentionally exceed his authorized access on a Secret Internet Protocol Router network computer and obtain information from the United States Department of State, to wit: a classified cable titled “Reykjavik 13,” in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 1030(a)(2), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

SPECIFICATION 7: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, on divers occasions, between on or about 19 November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, intentionally exceed his authorized access on a Secret Internet Protocol Router network computer and obtain information from an the United States Department of State, to wit: more than 150,000 diplomatic cables, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 1030(a)(2), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

SPECIFICATION 8: In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, on divers occasions, between on or about 19 November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, intentionally exceed his authorized access on a Secret Internet Protocol Router network computer and obtain information from the United States Department of Defense, to wit: a classified Microsoft Office PowerPoint presentation, in violation of 18 U.S. Code Section 1030(a)(2), such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

[GoneFishin]

246. Bullshit he exposed no crimes.

"... Manning exposed no crimes. ... "

I have read through too many posts here stating that Bradley M. did a data dump without knowing what he was releasing. Fine. But if our government chose to invest 1/10th of the resources investigating and prosecuting the crimes revealed in these documents as they have invested crushing Manning and persecuting Wikileaks, I am certain they would turn up plenty. The fact that the full weight of our government, and no doubt a compliant press, is exerted toward actively ignoring the contents of the documents only assures that no such effort will ever be made, thus making your stating a fairly low risk statement to make due to a highly stacked deck.

Given the volume of documents, I call bullshit. I believe if the political will was there, they could find evidence of a crime in the Apache helicopter double tap video alone.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/us-drones-strikes-target-rescuers-pakistan

"In 2010, when WikiLeaks published a video of the incident in which an Apache helicopter in Baghdad killed two Reuters journalists, what sparked the greatest outrage was not the initial attack, which the US army claimed was aimed at armed insurgents, but rather the follow-up attack on those who arrived at the scene to rescue the wounded. "

[CharlesInCharge]

258. Manning exposed no crimes, provided one pays no attention whatsoever

to the Geneva Conventions, the Army's Field Manual and, um, the laws of war.

Oh, right, and Manning wasn't tortured while in captivity, provided you ignore Juan Mendez, the UN Rapporteur on Human Rights.

There's a spot opening up for you on Fox News, I hear. They, like you, specialize in ignoring inconvenient facts.

[midnight]

235. K&R

[ucrdem]

250. "The truth is Manning has done a great service, both to MI5 and the UK as a whole."

Fixed your last sentence.

[HangOnKids]

257. Please take the hyperbole elsewhere

Taking on a DU GREAT might be a tad over your talents.

[ucrdem]

264. Don't bother explaining, I don't want to know. Bye. nt

[HangOnKids]

268. What a HOOT! n/t

[Octafish]

293. Who're the real traitors? Bush and Cheney who lied America into war?

Or Bradley Manning who saw what their lie was?

[cstanleytech]

301. Problem with Cheney and Bush is

they still have plausible deniability because they will claim the whole invasion of Iraq was based on a failure by intelligence agencies like the CIA.
Of course I believe they both are guilty as hell for it and other things like Abu Ghraib but until firmer evidence proves otherwise they can claim innocence though I wouldnt plan any trips to many countries overseas if I were in their shoes.

[leveymg]

317. Are you suggesting that some of the docs were leaked intentionally? Tunisia, Karzai, Iran cables?

Wikileaks presents some fine opportunities for disinformation and destabilization of dictators past their shelf life, of course. See, eg, http://wikileaks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/13/wikileaks_and_the_tunisia_protests

But, in the process, it seems the USG has had many downright appalling things exposed. Would the UK still have it out for us? Do you think?

[ucrdem]

333. Not some, all. Climategate?

Come on. As for the Iraq stuff none of it has exactly been news, and the timing is the giveaway: after Darth and Dumya are safely out of the building, but exquisitely engineered to dump their toxic waste at Obama's feet by making him the "war criminal" for not prosecuting Bushco for "war crimes."



It's sheer lunacy but look around if you don't think it worked. That's always been my basic assumption anyway, and UK usually seems to have its hand up Julian's Assange so to speak so this shouldn't be a big tinfoily surprise to anyone I hope. And I will hastily add, this is solely and purely my own wild and kuh-razy humble opinion and I will gladly self-delete if anyone is offended!

[leveymg]

339. Hmm . . .

if Wikileaks were all entirely a psywar construct, I'd argue it would have likely overheated and blown apart by now, as most things do. Like the Arab Spring. But, interesting . . .

By the way, if you're interested, there's a copy of the FISA Court order to Verizon instructing the company to turn over all of its domestic metadata records, including local telephone calls, here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022954138, and WaPo reporting same, here, http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2954290 Proof positive NSA driftnets are scooping up EVERYTHING. Told you so . . .

[JEB]

261. Our government has been up to some dirty shit.

I'm glad Manning revealed as much as he did.

[Octafish]

292. SECRECY means NO ACCOUNTABILITY

And when it comes to government power and the profit motive, no accountability means the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

That holds true, whether it's through war or theft.

[G_j]

332. When the deceptive operation of the warfare state can’t stand the light of day

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022950707 Norman Solomon:

"When the deceptive operation of the warfare state can’t stand the light of day, truth-tellers are a constant hazard. And culpability must stay turned on its head."

"While pick-and-choose secrecy is serving Washington’s top war-makers, the treatment of U.S. citizens is akin to the classic description of how to propagate mushrooms: keeping them in the dark and feeding them bullshit."