People forget or deny that Manning’s release of 251,000 diplomatic cables

[pnwmom]

caused unnecessary harm to innocent people. He could have released the helicopter videos and other similar material without putting innocent lives at risk through the indiscriminate, unredacted release of diplomatic cables containing the names of activists and allies working behind the scenes in repressive countries.

Examples:

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.


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


http://ipsnorthamerica.net/news.php?idnews=3419

NEW YORK, 2 Dec (IPS) - Some of the United States' leading human rights organisations are concerned for the safety of human rights advocates in countries with repressive regimes, where disclosure by Wikileaks could put them in deadly harm.

Groups including Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Human Rights First (HRF) believe it would be a mistake for Wikileaks to publish the names of foreign human rights activists and organisations that receive support from the U.S. government.

For that reason, HRF's President and CEO Elisa Massimino wrote to Wikileaks head Julian Assange several days before last Sunday's document release.

She said publishing the names of "individuals or organisations from repressive or authoritarian countries - such as Iran, China, Russia, Cuba etc. - is extremely reckless as it will increase their risk of persecution, imprisonment and violence."

"Human rights advocates in repressive and authoritarian countries face many dangers, as governments in those countries regularly harass, mistreat and imprison them," the letter said. "Not least among these dangers is being charged with receiving foreign support or 'cooperating' with foreign governments, as that can make them even more vulnerable to attack by governments and their agents."

[leveymg]

1. Again, not a single verified case of anyone killed or harmed as a result of the "data dump".

As, I responded to this same point you made on the other thread, this information is based in the asylum claims that may be self-serving. But, the Manning charging document does not allege a single person who has been killed as a result.

It's been 3 years since this accusation was first raised, and not a single verifiable case to substantiate the charge. Why is that?

[randome]

2. Does the U.S. government make an announcement everytime an undercover spy is killed?

The names were printed for all to see. I don't think it's a stretch of the imagination to think that there would be reprisals against some of them. What are the odds?

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

[RobertEarl]

15. Bush sure did not

When he and his bums outed the CIA agent, ya think some of the WMD spies weren't rubbed out?

I know some will consider the fact that Bush is free and the little guy is in jail, that justice is not being served. But why bother with bush, right? We have Manning.

In Other Words..... what is the real agenda of people who are happy that Manning is in jail?

[randome]

19. I'm not happy about him being in jail.

Not at all. All I'm saying is Manning endangered innocent people. So did Bush, Cheney, whoever called for the Plame leak. Unfortunately Scooter Libby took the fall for that, such as it was.

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

[pnwmom]

3. Wrong. The Committee to Protect Journalists has verified the harm done to Argaw.

Anyone with any common sense knows that many other activists have had their lives disrupted, their activities curtailed, or otherwise been harmed as a result of being named in these documents.

The fact that the charging document doesn't name any person who was killed is irrelevant. He is not being charged with murder. He's being charged with aiding the enemy, among other things.

[leveymg]

6. If there were severed heads as a result, we surely would have seen them, over, and over again.

But, no. If this is all there is as evidence of human damage from a quarter million cables, one can't take the accusations of great harm seriously.

[pnwmom]

8. So this person doesn't matter because YOU never heard of him?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/08/02/taliban-seeks-vengeance-in-wake-of-wikileaks.html

After WikiLeaks published a trove of U.S. intelligence documents—some of which listed the names and villages of Afghans who had been secretly cooperating with the American military—it didn’t take long for the Taliban to react. A spokesman for the group quickly threatened to “punish” any Afghan listed as having “collaborated” with the U.S. and the Kabul authorities against the growing Taliban insurgency. In recent days, the Taliban has demonstrated how seriously those threats should be considered. Late last week, just four days after the documents were published, death threats began arriving at the homes of key tribal elders in southern Afghanistan. And over the weekend one tribal elder, Khalifa Abdullah, who the Taliban believed had been in close contact with the Americans, was taken from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province’s embattled Arghandab district, and executed by insurgent gunmen.

[msanthrope]

9. 5 Human Rights organizations wrote to Assange about the uptick in violence they saw thanks to the

unredacted names---why are you ignoring that?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/amnesty-international-hum_n_677048.html

[el_bryanto]

11. It's interesting - i remember having a similar argument around the time of Ann Coulters Treason

Basically the argument was that not one innocent person was killed because of McCarthy therefore, there was nothing wrong with the red scare.

It was not a very persuasive argument, because of course the Red Scare created fear among a lot of innocent people, cost people jobs, cost people positions.

I'm not saying that Manning's cables were the equivalent of Joe McCarthy, of course, but at the same time I don't know if it's reasonable to assume that because nobody was beheaded that there weren't consequences to his actions that might be negative.

Bryant

[leveymg]

20. If it's not the equivalent of McCarthyism, why do you suggest an equivalency?

I'm saying the evidence for serious damage, such as loss of life, from the alleged release isn't substantial enough for the government to make that charge in this case. So why are people trying to make such an apparently unprovable case in blogs?

[arely staircase]

38. it is arguably worse

manning hurt people world wide.

[Maedhros]

81. When compared with the damage done by the governments implicated in the leaks

the hurt attributed to Manning is minimal.

I'd rather direct my outrage at the greater wrongdoing.

[arely staircase]

86. i can multitask

nt

[leveymg]

98. Then, you have to be transparent about what you think are the greater harms in this case.

It's not an easy calculus, unfortunately. Only fools would assume it was.

[arely staircase]

109. personally i think manning and cheney should both be in prison

because one is not in no way lets the other off.

[sulphurdunn]

112. There's the rub.

Manning will rot in a dungeon, and Cheney will live forever with mechanical hearts and injections of virgin's blood.

[el_bryanto]

103. I suggest an equivalent argument

You believe in what Manning did, as those who were defending McCarthy believed what he did. You are defending him, using an argument similar to those who defended McCarthy.

The difference is that of course what McCarthy did and what he stood for were clearly wrong - that's less definitive than it was in the past, but still pretty definitive. What Manning did might well have been the right thing to do, although possibly he didn't do it in the right way.

Bryant

[leveymg]

120. Don't conclude that I support what Manning did. Instead, my point is there is no real evidence it

caused great harm to the national interest or to any specific persons. Absent such proof, I am saying, one must look at the totality of the circumstances to see whether there may have been some positive good that came out of his actions.

Some of what he exposed -- such as the helicopter attack video -- was undoubtedly evidence of grave war crimes committed by US forces, something the American people need to know in order to fully understand our true role in the world, and why we are not seen as the force for good which many assume we are. Without an accurate understanding of the ugly truth, this country will continue to blunder into greater and greater disasters and pay an ever higher cost.

Nonetheless, I too also have some real problems with how Manning carried out his act of civil disobedience.

[tabasco]

46. LOL. The government of a repressive regime

is unlikely to publish a beheading video when it eliminates an enemy.

[leveymg]

100. The Taliban, al Qaeda and the Syrian Jihadi opposition video beheadings a lot. eom

[Luminous Animal]

23. The The Guardian shouldn't have published the password which caused a security breach and allowed

the cables to be downloaded by anyone.

[Egalitarian Thug]

34. That's kind of strange since Joel Simon, the Executive Director of the

Committee to Protect Journalists doesn't agree with your take on this at all.

[DirkGently]

89. Which he did not. The Espionage charges are bad-faith bullshit.

Period.

[badtoworse]

4. What difference does it make?

[msanthrope]

5. Kalifa Abdullah, per Newsweek---

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/08/02/taliban-seeks-vengeance-in-wake-of-wikileaks.html


Because of the uptick in assassinations, 5 Human Rights groups--including Amnesty International-- asked Assange to redact names--he just threw up his hands--

The email says: "We have seen the negative, sometimes deadly ramifications for those Afghans identified as working for or sympathising with international forces. We strongly urge your volunteers and staff to analyse all documents to ensure that those containing identifying information are taken down or redacted."

SNIP

"We are worried about the ramifications. Unama has released its report today on the protection of civilians and one of the startling trends is that assassinations have skyrocketed in the last year," she told the Guardian.

"The Taliban have announced they are going through these documents for names, and in the past when they have identified those in contact with the international military they have targeted them and killed them. That is our number one concern.

All of us who have reached out to WikiLeaks applaud greater transparency and accountability. But all of us who have worked on the ground in Afghanistan know that you need to make sure sources and civilians are not put in harm's way by your work. In cases of releasing documents sometimes it is still possible to have the transparency but redacting to the names involved."

The signatories to the letter also include the International Crisis Group and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-war-logs-wikileaks-human-rights-groups

The Taliban thanked Wikileaks, though.....

The Taliban, a radical Islamic militia in Afghanistan, announced its gratitude to Wikileaks for the release and vowed to hunt down those revealed in the documents to be collaborating with the U.S. It appears that they have now made good on that threat.

Khalifa Abdullah, a tribal elder, was removed from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province’s embattled Arghandab district, by gunmen. He was then executed.
http://www.dailytech.com/Taliban+Murders+Afghan+Elder+Thanks+Wikileaks+for+Revealing+Spies/article19250.htm

[pnwmom]

7. Thank you! n/t

[leveymg]

12. As for "Taliban thanked Wikileaks", so says "Jason Mick (Blog) - August 3, 2010 3:25 PM"

Again, you have to ask, why is this not alleged in the charging document? Because it would have to be proven, that's why.

[msanthrope]

17. It won't be in the charging document but in the evidence presented during the 'classified' portion

of the trial. Did anyone think the prosecution was gonna come to the table with anything less?

[leveymg]

22. Why keep that classified? There's no apparent reason to do so. This is just your speculation.

[msanthrope]

28. Because the government hs been consistent--any classified document has

been kept classified. Thus, the computer specialists can testify in open court that 250,000 war logs have been released, but the discussion of the contents of the logs is classified. It's to their advantage. They don't care about public opinion. They care about the judge.

[leveymg]

36. "They don't care about public opinion. They care about the judge." They care about both,

just like any other prosecutor with a high profile case.

If the gov't doesn't discuss classified documents at all, what is the underlying basis for the charge that Manning released them? You seem to be contradicting yourself in a basic way.

[pnwmom]

18. Charging documents only contain what is necessary to support the charges.

He's not being charged with murder. He's being charged with releasing documents that he had sworn to keep secure, and he's being charged with aiding the enemy. The prosecution doesn't have to prove negative consequences to anyone as a result of a crime -- it just has to prove that a crime occurred.

That doesn't mean that there weren't negative consequences -- just that they aren't a necessary part of proving the case against him.

[leveymg]

25. It's an essential part of the conviction and sentence, as well as forming public opinion.

If they thought they could prove it, they would state this kind of thing in the indictment as an aggravating circumstance. It defies reason and criminal procedure to believe otherwise.

[pnwmom]

29. No, it isn't. He already faces up to 150 years based on the charges

in front of him.

There's no reason to add other charges, especially charges of state-sponsored attacks of activists in countries that are enemies of the US and highly unlikely to assist us in proving them.

[leveymg]

45. But the unauthorized docs release charge also require the gov't to describe the document in order

to obtain a conviction.

It's fatuous to assert that the prosecutor isn't specifying damage done of the sort you allege simply because it would involve a requirement to reveal and discuss the document that was leaked. The prosecution would not need to prove a charge of murder to establish that an exposed US agent was killed, merely the fact that the person's death was proximate to Manning's act of releasing the classified document naming the victim. There would be no need to prove that Manning intended the person to die, merely that the release led to the agent's death. But, that would have to be established beyond a reasonable doubt, and it's unlikely that such an allegation can be proven.

Besides, the contents of the 251,000 leaked documents are no longer in need of protection. If there was a need to probe into the contents of still classified material or subject matter, that would be done in camera. If the prosecutors thought they had a case for such a charge, they would have charged him. But, they didn't. Or, doesn't that fact matter to the kangaroos and lynch mob around here?

[pnwmom]

58. Describing an emailed document isn't the same as proving a death or torture or other harm

to an individual who was named in it.

The former is necessary to support the charge; the latter is irrelevant.

He's not being charged with murder. He's being charged with releasing classified documents that he had sworn to keep confidential.

But all the people here who are trying to whip up sympathy for him don't seem to care that he hurt many innocent people, and damaged diplomatic relations around the world, in his entirely unnecessary dump of confidential diplomatic cables.

[leveymg]

72. The point some are trying to make is that harm done by Manning is less than the harm done by secrecy

and the government's many harms shown by the documents.

Unless you can prove great harm by the release -- which apparently you can't -- you have to look at the offsetting harm of gov't conduct and the good of exposing it.

In the balance, one must admit that what Manning did may have been for the greater good of the country. That determination is entirely different from establishing conviction by the criminal charges against him.

[pnwmom]

76. But it was completely unnecessary! He could have just released things like the helicopter

videos without also releasing the diplomatic cables.

Diplomacy often depends on secrecy. Anyone who doesn't realize that doesn't know anything about history or diplomacy. We wouldn't need diplomats if all diplomatic work was "transparent" and "open." To think otherwise is hopelessly naive.

[Luminous Animal]

40. "While it is unknown whether any of the men were indeed named in the WikiLeaks documents"

Khalifa Abdullah's name does not show up in any Afghan War Logs searchable database.

Go ahead. Search for yourself:

http://www.archive-it.org/collections/2017

https://github.com/yourcelf/afgexplorer

[msanthrope]

43. I'm sure it was scrubbed. nt

[Luminous Animal]

54. Hahaha. You know, that quote in my title comes from your article...

Oh yeah. Great reporting by "News"week.

[jeff47]

37. Because the information is still classified.

The government can not acknowledge any harm due to being in the Wikileaks dump because those documents are still classified. Despite being leaked.

As a result, the government can not say "John Smith was executed because he leaked information to US agents". John Smith's identity, and the fact that he leaked information are both still classified.

[leveymg]

51. If that were the reason, they'd conduct that part of the trial in camera (closed session).

That's not the reason he hasn't been charged or that aggravating circumstance alleged. It's because that allegation of harm likely can't be proven.

[jeff47]

115. What do you think the "aiding the enemy" charges stem from? (nt)

[leveymg]

116. Good point. That too will have to be proved by the very same evidence.

Further pulling the rug out from under the other side of the argument about this issue.

[jeff47]

117. Not really. Closed session is still an option. (nt)

[DevonRex]

10. Yes. And the names of sources in the ME (HUMINT) and their MI contacts.

He readily admitted divulging HUMINT and SIGINT. This gets real live people killed' both civilian and military. Not just our military, either, but NATO.

[pnwmom]

13. So a lot of the people decrying Cheney's exposing Valerie Plame's network

support Wikileaks and Manning doing the same to other American spies.

[leveymg]

16. Plame was a career NOC CIA officer with an established cover. Her outing had definite consequences

and those are detailed in the indictment.

This stuff is nothing but conjecture that doesn't have any apparent evidence to support it in court, so they didn't allege this specific harm.

[pnwmom]

26. How do you think we could go about proving, to the satisfaction of a US court,

a case of state-sponsored murder or torture related to Wikileaks in a far-away country run by enemies of the U.S.?

Get real.

OF COURSE this isn't in a charging document. Because it's IRRELEVANT. He's not being prosecuted for abetting murder. He's being prosecuted for violating his sworn duty to protect the documents in his possession and he's being prosecuted for aiding the enemy.

That does not mean he didn't harm innocent people. It just means that he's not being charged with that. As it is, the crimes they are charging him with could keep him in prison for life.

[leveymg]

60. So, if you admit such a charge is unlikely to be proven, why do you consider him guilty of it?

I guess Basic Fairness just doesn't apply to a lynch mob or to Bradley Manning.

Nobody is saying Manning didn't reveal classified documents. He's stipulated to that. By your own logic, why don't you just leave it at that? Why are you trying to "prove" that he committed great harm when the facts don't even support that to a journalistic standard, much less a legal one.

If the evidence you present of great harm convinced me, I would acknowledge it. But, you haven't.

[pnwmom]

66. Because I think the people who are trying to whip up support for him

are ignoring the very real damage he did to our diplomatic efforts around the world -- efforts we undertake to decrease the chance of war --and harmed activists working in repressive countries when they were outed.

I don't think we should be making heroes of people like him.

If he had limited himself to releasing things like the helicopter videos, I'd feel very differently about him.

[leveymg]

82. You have to establish that "very real damage" was done to US diplomatic efforts.

If you can do that, you would improve your case against Manning-style insider leaks. How has this increased the chances of war? You haven't really proven that there was real harm done to activists in repressive countries. The natural effect of US foreign policy doesn't necessarily go to decrease chances of war or to help activists in repressive countries. One might argue, quite the opposite, overall.

If the US is actually a malevolent force in the world, what Manning did was an act of defiance, justice, and high morality. The only way to morally judge Manning is to judge the United States. I wish the answer to these questions was more clear.

[Maedhros]

87. The "harms diplomatic efforts" talking point

is not compelling.

If diplomacy relies on secret illegal and immoral behavior by my government, then we need better diplomats.

[leveymg]

91. It's the unnecessary lies told the public that are really damaging, I'd argue.

It's sometimes necessary to maintain some actions such as negotiations in secrecy for a period of time, but very little needs to be kept classified for more than a few years.

Diplomacy is the art of avoiding outright lies or actions that must remain hidden.

[Generic Other]

111. We can see our diplomacy in action on the helicopter video

Where the gunner calls the targets "pricks" and after shooting them ends by saying they shouldn't bring kids to a fight.

"Harming our diplomatic efforts" is the least of our worries and not our best talking point as you say.

[DevonRex]

24. Yes. nt

[leveymg]

14. Not a single death is alleged in the Manning charging document. This is conjecture.

If the government thought it could make a case that Manning caused anyone to be killed, they would have alleged it. But, they would have to prove it.

[pnwmom]

27. No, they wouldn't have alleged it. It wouldn't have added anything of importance

to their case.

Their case is about his willful release of the data and his violation of his sworn duties.

[DevonRex]

32. No. They do not need to list everything that resulted from his actions.

They made decisions after doing damage reports. First they determined the results of the leaks. Then came an assessment of future potential damage if specific leak results became public. Sometimes the future damage is too great to risk. Especially if they have enough to prosecute and convict on other charges. How many life sentences does a person need?

[arely staircase]

41. that is not what charging documents do

nt

[leveymg]

83. I've read enough indictments to know you are wrong about that. eom

[arely staircase]

88. do you think the zimmerman prosecution will limit itself to what is in the charging doc?

nt

[leveymg]

93. Obviously, public opinion means quite a lot to the prosecution in that case as well.

eom

[arely staircase]

94. but their case will be much more tahn what was in the charging doc

as will the prosecutors' in manning's trial.

[leveymg]

101. I don't think the gov't is withholding evidence of deaths tracable to Manning. Really, I don't.

We'd be knee-deep in gory videos and images and the ratta-tat-tat of cable TV correspondents if there were such evidence.

[arely staircase]

108. perhaps

but at the end of the day they don't have to show anything is traceable to him other than the leaks, I think. I would like to read what the elements of what he is charged with are. now having said that, the Chinese government as well as the Taliban have said themselves that they used the cables to find "rats" and collaborators.

[Luminous Animal]

21. Reporters for The Guardian, in their book, revealed the password to the cables.That is why they were

released unredacted. This was the Guardian's fuck up. Not Wikileaks.

[pnwmom]

30. Nobody would have done this if Manning hadn't dumped the 250,000 cables

which could have contained ANYTHING -- he didn't know.

He's no Daniel Ellsburg, despite what Ellsburg thinks.

[frylock]

57. He's no Daniel Ellsburg, despite what Ellsburg thinks.

fucking incredible.

[pnwmom]

61. Ellsburg didn't lash out in anger, and he only released the documents

he needed to to prove his case.

He's willing to overlook how different Manning's situation was, but I'm not.

[frylock]

62. Ellsberg supports Manning..

so despite your opinion, I'll take the word of Daniel Ellsberg.

[pnwmom]

73. I know he does. I'd love to ask him how releasing 250,000 diplomatic cables,

the contents of which were unknown to Manning, was comparable to Ellsburg's limited release about the Vietnam war?

[Maedhros]

90. Here is Ellsberg's answer

From his blog (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-ellsberg/bradley-manning-military-court-speech_b_2859353.html):

Critics have alleged that a major difference between my case and Manning's is that I was discriminating in what I leaked, while Manning wasn't. He just dumped some material that doesn't need to be out, they say. This is simply false.

First, it's important to point out most of the material he put out was unclassified. The rest was classified 'secret,' which is relatively low level. All of the Pentagon Papers was classified top secret.

But in a fact no one seems to observe from his statement, Manning was working within a "SCIF," which stands for Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. To get into a SCIF, a soldier needs a clearance higher than top secret. This means he had access to the highest classified material, such as communications and signals intelligence. This means he could've put out information top secret and higher, and purposely chose not to do so.

[blackspade]

102. Bingo!

[pnwmom]

107. Ellsburg doesn't explain why all 250,000 diplomatic cables "needed" to be out.

I still don't understand how that can be compared to the very selective leaking by Ellsburg.

[frylock]

106. you are not an authority on this subject matter..

whereas Mr. Ellsberg is. you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is. YOUR opinion.

[CharlesInCharge]

63. Could you at least spell Ellsberg's last name correctly? Jeez! - nt

[Luminous Animal]

92. Ellsberg believes Manning is even more courageous than he was...

I am going to be so proud to march in the Bradley Manning contingent during SF Pride with Daniel Ellsberg and 100s of other amazing supporters and activists.

[bvar22]

31. UnRec for conjecture and speculation.

I noticed you sourced "The Taliban" in your attack.

[warrprayer]

33. Truth

Those without honor do not recognize truth. They profit through the trading of falsehoods. They pay homage to whatever benefits them singularly, regardless of the suffering it may cause others. The honorable continuously seek information. They recognize truth when it is present, regardless of the costs and consequences associated with it. They

fight, suffer, and die to protect truth. Without honor, truth cannot exist. In the absence of truth, all suffer.


Bradley Manning is paying the price in full.

[MoreGOPoop]

39. ^ Truth!

[pnwmom]

48. I don't think truth or honor had all that much to do with this.

I think he was mad -- not just about bad things he knew the US had done, but about his own treatment in the Army -- and so he lashed out, dumping data indiscriminately and without regard to consequences.

And then he wanted attention, so he went online and bragged about what he'd done.

If he'd only released things like the helicopter videos, I'd feel completely differently. But I can't find a way to justify the cable release.

[warrprayer]

68. I believe

... the helicopter video bothered him. He compared the pilots to "children torturing ants with a magnifying glass".

[pnwmom]

70. I do, too. So why didn't he confine his release to things like that?

It would have actually had more of an impact, because the cable dump was a major distraction.

[warrprayer]

84. you make a reasonable point.

But I don't believe he will be treated reasonably.

[Downwinder]

35. Has security been beefed up

on the government's supposedly secure network? Wonder how many times it was exploited before Manning without anyone's knowledge.

If it has not been improved it means that the data is not important.

[Celldweller]

42. pity for Manning is misplaced

He deserves to have the book(s) thrown at him.

[warrprayer]

44. And the Bush administration

and Wall street crooks deserve to walk around scott free. Bullshit.

[pnwmom]

49. No one here thinks that. n/t

[Celldweller]

53. many here think that.

I've been reading posts all day.

[Celldweller]

52. life isn't fair.

The people who fabricated intel... the bankers and their congressional allies that caused the recession...

They SHOULD be liable.

However... what Manning did was 100% wrong. Remember... we live in a nation of laws. Maybe Manning shoulda showed up at Pelosi's front door with a USB DRIVE instead of calling up Assange.

[CharlesInCharge]

50. Over 60,000 people have signed a petition that the Nobel Committee

award Manning a Nobel Peace Prize.

So you're at odds with at least 60,000 people (among them such unknowns as Daniel Ellsberg, Alice Walker and Lt. Dan Choi).

http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=7612

[frylock]

59. He's no Daniel Ellsburg, despite what Ellsburg thinks.

for reals.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2952517

[CharlesInCharge]

67. It's 'Ellsberg' and Ellsberg thinks Manning is actually

his moral superior.

Given the stakes and the torture Manning endured while in captivity, I'm tempted to agree.

[frylock]

69. oh, i agree..

and i'm familiar with the spelling, as I've read "Secrets." that bit of bullshit I posted comes straight from the OP's mouth.

[CharlesInCharge]

78. Got ya. Missed the inside baseball self-referential stuff going on here :) - nt

[cheapdate]

47. Thought provoking. Thanks.

[Rex]

55. What bothers me is that he released information without looking it over

in it's entirety. To me that is sloppy and shows his lack of experience. Releasing information without knowing what is in it, is irresponsible imo.

[maidensandiego]

74. I 2nd this emotion !

EXACTAMUNDO REX !!!! I agree ! And not to mention he SWORN an OATH when he ENLISTED voluntarily. Not DRAFTED !

[Rex]

80. Yes, if he was so concerned about the information

then why not send it to Daryl Issa? He is so desperate for something bad on the Presidency, he probably would have read it all line by line in Congress as evidence!

The kid, due to inexperience, panicked and hit the SEND button. A mistake that will cost him imo.

[limpyhobbler]

56. Government abuse of secrecy power and hiding the true cost of wars - causes unnecessary harm to

... innocent people.

The government is way out of line on the quantity of stuff they say needs to be kept secret.

It should be much less.

Also if the government wants to commit mass murder in other countries, in our name, I think it should all be exposed and we have the right to know what is being done secretly in our name. Secrecy should be used in much more rare circumstances. "We the people" are supposed to direct our government via representative democracy. But democracy is impossible with such extreme secrecy.

The case against manning is just intended to strike fear into reporters and would-be whistle-blowers to get them to STFU and obey the government.

[blackspade]

64. Ahh the sweet smell of authoritarianism.....

sigh....

[mike_c]

65. weak sauce....

I mean, sure-- releasing those cables created far more risk and suffering than the events the cables themselves were part of, right? That's like saying it's wrong to stop a mass murderer because, well, it ruins his day. Sheesh.

[maidensandiego]

71. OATH'S DO MATTER !

He deserves PUNISHMENT. As John Dean former White House Counsel to Nixon pointed out to Nicole Sandler sitting in for Randi Rhodes...he ENLISTED...was not DRAFTED. Then given CLEARANCE and access to classified information. Then he BROKE THE LAW.....once he went against that trust. Instead of going up the CHAIN. Doesn't matter if his concerns would've fell on deaf ears. He swore an OATH when he enlisted. No IF...ANDS....or But's about it. I'd charge him with TREASON if I had the luxury.

[pnwmom]

79. I agree. And I think virtually all soldiers take their oaths very seriously. n/t

[Maedhros]

96. This is a liberal forum, right?

Just checking.

[ybbor]

114. Yes oaths do matter, but...

part of the oath is to protect the constitution as I read it:

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

While he swore to obey the orders of the President and officers above him, doesn't the oath to defend the Constitution and prevent war crimes from being committed override the necessity to follow his commanding officers orders? We have executed others for not doing exactly that.

I think what he did could have been done "neater", but his inaction would have been worse IMO.

[backscatter712]

118. He remembered this part of his oath:

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

The people and Constitution of the United States clearly has a lot of domestic enemies. Manning exposed quite a few of the fuckers.

[pnwmom]

77. Yes, let's. But this isn't an either/or situation. n/t

[Smarmie Doofus]

85. I'm curious. Do you agree that releasing "the helicopter videos and other similar materials"....

>>>caused unnecessary harm to innocent people. He could have released the helicopter videos and other similar material without putting innocent lives at risk through the indiscriminate, unredacted release of diplomatic cables containing the names of activists and allies working behind the scenes in repressive countries. >>>

... was, objectively, considered in isolation, a "good" thing?

[pnwmom]

99. I'm afraid that for me the helicopter video release got obscured by the diplomatic cable

release.

But from what I recall, yes, I think it was a good thing that the helicopter video came out -- but that wouldn't necessarily leave Manning in the clear. He had an obligation as a soldier that someone like Daniel Ellsburg did not.

[Smarmie Doofus]

110. I agree with that. The *legal* case, involves a lot a lot of things mixed up together. But....

... you're not going to tell me... or try to tell me ... that what I see, for instance, with my own eyes in the helicopter video ( to wit: US Military personnel in a helicopter killing a lot of unarmed Iraqis, whose status as combatants is .... at he very least.... *unclear*, and then intentionally killing a wounded survivor of the first attack as well as intentionally killing a passer-by who was attempting to drive the wounded survivor to safety, and then laughing about it.) is not what I'm actually seeing and hearing.

Right ?

And you're not going to tell me that it was ok for the US military to keep the video secret and hidden from public view and to deny its existence when it was FOIA'd by Reuters.

Right?

Please say "yes" so i can forever distinguish you from the "crazies" on this issue.

[mimi85]

95. I thought I was the only one

who felt this way. For some reason this takes a load off my shoulders. I still don't understand why he went to Assange, a narcissistic piece of work if there ever was one. Hmmm...wonder how the Assange deal will eventually end up. Manning doesn't strike me as very intelligent and he was so used and manipulated by Assange. The whole sordid case makes me ill.

[pnwmom]

97. You're not. There are plenty here who agree with you. n/t

[freshwest]

104. Agreed. And we'll never know most of the names of foreign nationals killed for either cause.

[moondust]

105. K/R

[ReRe]

113. Whatever Bradley Manning did....

... it doesn't hold a candle to the guilt of the USG, who perpetrated a needless preemptive war of aggression on Iraq and in the process killed untold 100s of thousands of innocent people in the process. Look it... remember when Rummy said we would be in and out of there in no time? And how long was we there?

Aww, heck. Bradley Manning and Julian Assange are innocent, compared to what the USG has done since the beginning of the Cold War a couple years after the end of WWII. Why should Manning and Assange be persecuted/prosecuted in any way? When are we going to hold the feet of the USG & it's MIC to the fire with their reign of terror over the effing world for so many decades? And for this horrid "War on Terror" which is only giving birth to future terrorists. It's like a self-fulfilling prophesy: wage war on terror and keep the war machine churning and raking in the $ into the endless future. Instead of defending our National Security, they are creating National effing Insecurity!

This little real-life Kissingeresque boardgame of "RISK" has got to come to an end in this country. If we can't hold GWB and his cabal and our past war criminals accountable, then let BM and JA go free. All they did was report to the world what the USG has really been up to, since the the bought-off US media doesn't have the guts to do it. If the American People have to pay for it, then we need & have the right to know where all the money went.

[pnwmom]

121. What Manning did when he released the cables was provide a major distraction

from what should have been a huge story -- the helicopter videos and other actual war crimes that he'd also leaked.

He defeated his own mission when he gratuitously released unredacted diplomatic cables that harmed human rights activists and diplomatic work around the world.

[ReRe]

123. You ignored everything I said...

... and I said all I need to say. That being that those two men did nothing compared to what the USGMIC does all over the world ever day. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

[morningfog]

119. Long live Manning! I thank him as a hero.

[Babel_17]

122. So many people, with higher pay grades

Many, many, people were in the know and are partly responsible for young and inexperienced people like Manning having to deal with a moral and ethical dilemma.

And as we know, whistle blowing in this country is only barely tolerated in theory, and not much so in practice. Where was the rule book for Manning to follow?

But yeah, I think Manning would still do the leaks today but in a more sophisticated manner.

Edit: You know, I have to wonder how many higher ups were counting on someone below bearing the risk of leaking the info on criminality.

Who here thinks that classified info would always stay in the shadows? The truth was going to come out but it was left for an amateur like Manning to have a ton of it dropped in his lap.

There should have been high level leaks before Manning came into the picture.

[pnwmom]

125. This is about the leaks of DIPLOMATIC CABLES

not the leaks of the helicopter raids or other military crimes.

The leak of 251,000 diplomatic cables damaged our diplomatic efforts around the world and put human rights activists at risk for their lives -- and for no good reason.

The diplomatic cable dump was a SEPARATE dump from the helicopter videos and other documents that showed the US involved in war crimes. The only connection was the Manning did it all.