Why did Bradley manning release the names of Chinese dissidents who had contacted the US Embassy?

[arely staircase]

How did that expose Bush/Cheney lies?

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.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/asia-pacific/leaked-cables-spark-witch-hunt-for-chinese-rats/article2165339/

[ForgoTheConsequence]

1. Maybe I missed it.

Where was Manning mentioned in that article?

[arely staircase]

4. these are the unredacted state depaertment cables

he has plead guilty to releasing.

[el_bryanto]

2. I don't know what method he used to determine what to turn over to wikileaks - possibly he didn't

have the opportunity or time to sift through the info and decide what to send.

Bryant

[Dreamer Tatum]

3. Yeah, he was on a tight timeline to steal stuff and indiscriminately hand it over

Gotta move quick for that mover and shaker Assange.

[Politicalboi]

10. I believe it was over

750,000 pages. It's too bad he didn't take more care of leaking shit. He NEVER could have read all those papers before he released them. I give him credit for trying, but his method needs improvement.

[Cha]

61. He didn't Use any "method". It was a collossal DUMP.

Idiot move.

[treestar]

92. Exactly Cha!

Whistleblowers are responsible. They look for the specific thing that proves something.

[Cha]

97. Calling Bradley Manning a "whistleblower" is like

calling dick cheney a liberator.

[frazzled]

64. Precisely why he can't be called a "whistleblower"

Whistleblowers are blowing the whistle on something specific. This was a 750,000 document dump--just turning over anything he had access to, without regard for the subject matter or consequences.

[pnwmom]

82. No reason or method. He just indiscriminately released 251,000 diplomatic cables

that he couldn't possibly have read.

Why? Because he could.

[treestar]

91. How can that be an excuse?

You don't do it if you don't know what you are releasing. Don't whistleblowers have any ethics?

[geek tragedy]

5. The Manning/Assange fans don't care about that kind of stuff.

Manning and Assange are saints who do no wrong, so those who dare point out facts like this should just shut up.

[GoneFishin]

43. Not the complete story though. Important details are being left out.

Why won’t the Pentagon help WikiLeaks redact documents?

http://www.salon.com/2010/08/20/wikileaks_5/

"Assange wrote that WikiLeaks would consider recommendations made by the International Security Assistance Force ‘on the identification of innocents for this material if it is willing to provide reviewers’ ”

[geek tragedy]

46. Irrelevant to Manning's actions, nt

[GoneFishin]

58. Oh. Who are they alleging Assange received the documents from?

What ... was ... his ... name?

[geek tragedy]

62. So what? Manning didn't offer that opportunity to the government, ergo

he doesn't get credit for it and it doesn't mitigate the criminality of his actions.

[GoneFishin]

70. True. But the government is disingenuous if they express concern for names in the

documents when they themselves were offered an opportunity to redact them, but passed.

My opinion is that they had a temper tantrum and refused to cooperate with Assange in any manner. And instead they chose to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Making them culpable also.

[pnwmom]

84. They were not. The 251,000 cables came in a different dump. n/t

[jeff47]

63. Because the Pentagon would prefer to not break the law.

I know, it's an almost quaint idea that the law should actually apply all the time instead of when it's ideologically convenient.

[arely staircase]

71. how is that the fault of the Chinese dissidents outed by Manning?

the subject of the OP?

[jeff47]

123. The claim was the government could have helped wikileaks filter the content

The problem is doing so is committing a felony. The same ones they're charging Manning with.

People with security clearances (and thus no 1st amendment protection) would be handing classified information to someone without a clearance.

[arely staircase]

132. I see, makes sense.

nt

[GoneFishin]

72. In a vacuum I would agree with you, but given the history it doesn't wash.

[jeff47]

126. The law doesn't apply because you don't like it in this situation?

The people "scrubbing" the information would have security clearances. They have no first amendment protection in regards to leaking classified information.

You are arguing that they should hand over classified information, minus some names, to someone without a clearance. Also known as doing exactly what the government is charging Manning with doing.

[GoneFishin]

135. No. I am arguing that the Pentagon does whatever the hell it likes, and would do whatever they

saw fit to do to protect assets or civilian lives if they had a bonafide concern for the people named in the documents.

The notion that the reason they couldn't redact the documents which Assange already had, and thereby ostensibly save lives, was because they didn't want to bend the rules is pretty laughable.

[jeff47]

139. You should think about this with less than your blind hatred.

Assange already had the documents, and was refusing to return them. Thus from the government's perspective the damage was already done - the names were out.

And events proved them right. Wikileaks and the news organizations redacted names. But the names got out anyway because they failed to protect the un-redacted documents. If the government had redacted the names, the result would have been the same.

In the meantime, they would have also either have to send lots more people to prison, or release Manning.

[GoneFishin]

150. I understand your logic, but I am interested to know what your source for this is:

"But the names got out anyway because they failed to protect the un-redacted documents."

Blind hatred?

[pnwmom]

83. These are 251,000 diplomatic cables -- not the same dump. A different one. n/t

[struggle4progress]

104. "Hi! I have hundreds of thousands of documents that you don't distribute generally! Do you think

maybe you could help me find all the sensitive information in them? I just want to black all that stuff out before I release everything. It sure would be a real big help to me!"

"Um .. hmmm ... uh ... y'know, dude, we don't really know you, and some of the folk here are wondering if you might be running a little espionage ring on the side. So we can't see any reason to tell you what's sensitive in any documents of ours that you might have. And if you do actually have hundreds of thousands of our documents, we think you should just give them back to us"

"Hmmpf! Then I'll just release them all anyway"

"Like I said, we don't know you"

[whistler162]

110. Possibly for the same reason

a home owner doesn't help the fence sell the stolen property!

[GoneFishin]

119. So then it came down to "we don't like what your are doing, so we are not going cooperate, no

matter who gets hurt in the process".

[jeff47]

128. No, it came down to "we'd have to go to prison when we finished". (nt)

[morningfog]

127. I don't care about that, you are right. Means justified the ends.

[geek tragedy]

153. Well, it makes him a criminal, so it's earned his ass prison time. nt

[morningfog]

157. After his secret trial, of course.

[geek tragedy]

158. You mean the secret trial everyone's following? nt

[morningfog]

159. Yes, the one that the government is not being forthright with the evidence

and lacks transparency.

[Historic NY]

152. Do you think the defense will call Assange.........

[arely staircase]

163. that would be rich

nt

[msanthrope]

6. He didn't care. nt

[loli phabay]

11. yup this, to release this much info unseen shows disregard to the fate of people named

I would have some respect for him if he released specific stuff but i dont think he cared about repercussions for anybody outed.

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. In order to expose war criminals, to Speak Truth TO Power

[arely staircase]

8. Chinese dissidents and academics are war criminals?

nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. But, but, but,...Empire

[arely staircase]

14. ok, gotcha

nt

[pnwmom]

85. To expose Tibetan and Chinese human rights activists.

Yeah, that's really speaking truth to power.

[randome]

9. Ask Roger Waters that. I'd be curious about his response.

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

[arely staircase]

12. ok

[NCTraveler]

15. I don't know, Manning doesn't know...

He had no clue what he was doing. By all accounts it looks like he wasn't competent enough to be in the position he was in. His direct commanders, who worked with him daily, should be facing court martial right along with him.

[PragmaticLiberal]

16. THIS has been my biggest gripe with Manning/wikileaks all along.

[pnwmom]

89. Me, too. n/t

[whatchamacallit]

17. Such concern...

War crimes?
Document dumping? [URL=http://www.sherv.net/emoticons.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[arely staircase]

18. but as for the question

why did Manning out the Chinese dissidents?

[whatchamacallit]

20. 'Why' implies it was intentional

you think it was?

[hrmjustin]

21. He is still responsible for it.

[arely staircase]

22. He intentionally leaked the documents

are you saying he didn't even know what he was putting out there? that hardly seems heroic.

[whatchamacallit]

28. Yet your strong human rights concerns don't extend to US crimes

Says a lot about your real motivations in this

War crimes?
Document dumping? [URL=http://www.sherv.net/emoticons.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[arely staircase]

29. sure it does, but the OP is; why did Manning out the Chinese dissidents?

I take it you have no answer.

[whatchamacallit]

34. He made the decision to expose crimes

and, unfortunately, couldn't scrutinize every document? Do you contend Manning has caused more harm exposing these acts than our government has by concealing them?

[arely staircase]

45. two wrongs don't make a right

nt

[whatchamacallit]

49. Tell that to the drone pilots who take out whole families

getting "the bad guys".

[arely staircase]

60. perfect, a red herring wrapped up in an appeal to emotion

a logically fallacious two-for.

[whatchamacallit]

65. Brass tacks

We've been committing real crimes, killing innocents without accountability, and you're ringing your hands over the incidental release of the names of chinese dissidents you never gave a rat's ass about before. I'm sure they're greatful you've got their backs.

[hrmjustin]

67. Can you debate without the snark?

[arely staircase]

69. you really don't want to answer the question in the op do you?

nt

[whatchamacallit]

73. I already did given my limited information

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2959403

What's the answer you're hoping for? Your Manning concern-trollery is a hoot.

[arely staircase]

74. you arguing two mutually exclusive positions

A. He is a hero for releasing the cables to expose crimes contained within.

B. He didn't know what was in the cables.

[hrmjustin]

76. Don't you love the snark?

[arely staircase]

81. the parade of logical

fallacies and self-contradiction is even more loveable.

[whatchamacallit]

77. He knew the contents of some of the documents

and made the call to pass them all along. Too nuanced for you?

[hrmjustin]

79. Yes and the dissidents payed for it.

Perhaps he should have been more careful at the very least.

[arely staircase]

80. which ones did he know the contents of?

how do you know this?

[treestar]

94. So you don't give a rat's ass about them either?

As long as US "war crimes" are exposed, anything can happen to people from other countries.

[whatchamacallit]

99. So you'd be cool if the names weren't in there?

Didn't think so. Keep up your heroic concern.

[arely staircase]

111. if he had sent a cable or two or hell a thousand that uncovered crimes

to, lets say Sen. Sanders I would think he was a brave, admirable young man. If he had sent direct evidence of such crimes to wikileaks I would still think that- though I would disagree with his choice of to whom to send them. But he did an, at best, terribly irresponsible thing. And my sympathy in all this lies with the Chinese dissidents and academics and afghans and the African journalist and that journalist's sources and others that he put in danger.

[whatchamacallit]

112. Yeah? Well his "irresponsibility" exposed our murderous fuckery

I for one, want to know what's being done in my name.

[arely staircase]

115. i was already aware of it and nothing he did changed one single thing for the better

it did put people in peril that had nothing to do with the wars and he has flushed his own life down the toilet. I suppose he can take solace in your support and that of others whose lives will go on unmolested by his unfortunate decisions, unlike his own and those of people from China to Africa to Afghanistan who he endangered. Some hero.

[whatchamacallit]

117. Bullshit

The government depends on cowed citizens to perpetrate this shit. People like you.

[arely staircase]

124. ad hominem fallacy

Are you going for all of them?

[hrmjustin]

125. Look I know you think Manning is a hero and that is fine.

I don't hate him and some of the stuff he released I am glad he did. It showed some of the many lies of the bush administration. But a part of his leaks comes this issue of the dissidents and they are human to. Some are in terror for their lives. There were real life consequences of his actions and we should not paper them over.

[Cha]

66. Thank you, arely.. for describing it

perfectly.

[GoneFishin]

121. I thought that was what the OP was, but kudos to you for admitting it.

[arely staircase]

131. no, the op is a question

I would be interested in your answer if you have one. Why did Manning give the names of Chinese academics and human rights activists who had had contact with the US Embassy in Beijing to foreign interests?

[GoneFishin]

145. It is a loaded question, and a poison pill.

I doubt if anybody here feels good about such a thing possibly happening. Your intent seems to be to poison the well, and it seems to be working quite well on this thread.

Good for you.

What Bradley Manning did still took the kind of guts we don't see these days. He stood to gain nothing and lose everything. On the flip side I expect that the Apache double tap that killed those civilians is the tip of the iceberg.

How do you feel about our tax money being spent to deliberately cut civilians' bodies in half with machine gun fire?

[geek tragedy]

53. Are you seriously arguing that it was whistleblowing to leak documents he never bothered to read? nt

[whatchamacallit]

55. He obviously knew the contents of much of it

Pining for that mushroom box?

[geek tragedy]

59. No, that isn't obvious.

Afraid to answer the question?

[pnwmom]

88. He obviously knew no such thing. There were 251,000 cables. Are you claiming

he read "much" of that?

[arely staircase]

134. which ones were those?

nt

[pnwmom]

87. The 251000 diplomatic cables are unrelated to the military releases that exposed crimes.

He caused a great deal of harm by releasing them. This was an entirely separate data dump from the release of the helicopter video and other documentation of war crimes.

[hrmjustin]

36. Interesting that you question the motives of a fellow member who has a good question.

[whatchamacallit]

37. Be interested.

[hrmjustin]

38. Do you not care about these dissidents?

[whatchamacallit]

42. I do

My question is how much you (actually) do.

[hrmjustin]

44. I do care that they were exposed. Some of them live in terror now because of it.

[whatchamacallit]

52. Yeah, bet it keeps you up at night...

Meanwhile your servile trust and support of our rogue government results in stuff like this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2956906

[hrmjustin]

57. Yes thank you for your snark!

I do care about it. And the man who killed 1600 people has himself to blame. You mistake my anger at the dissident exposure as I am 100% against what Manning did. I am not. Like many people here I have mixed feelings. But unlike some others I don't worship him.

[geek tragedy]

23. So he just released documents without reading them?

How is that whistle-blowing?

[okaawhatever]

24. Absolutely. Someone did the math and if he took 30 seconds per page, and looked at documents 24/7

he still wouldn't have had enough time to go through all of them. He did a complete document dump. Assange had time (or his organization) to screen them and didn't. Assange was warned by a pro-transparency org that he should be more selective because it would result in deaths and he gave some answer that show what kind of a sleaze bag he really was. From what I read, that was one of the reason that people were leaving the organization at that time.
Assange's narcissism completely turned public sympathy for what was done.

[geek tragedy]

25. I know that--but the Manning fanpeople don't want to admit it, nt

[GoneFishin]

54. Not my understanding of what happened.

Why won’t the Pentagon help WikiLeaks redact documents?

http://www.salon.com/2010/08/20/wikileaks_5/

"Assange wrote that WikiLeaks would consider recommendations made by the International Security Assistance Force ‘on the identification of innocents for this material if it is willing to provide reviewers’ ”

[jeff47]

68. Because you are forgetting that there's still laws

The information remains classified despite being leaked. It's illegal for anyone with a clearance to help redact them.

[treestar]

95. Somebody steals our government's documents

And then starts telling us what to do? Really?

That's bullying.

[Luminous Animal]

98. Actually, Wikileaks did screen and but reporters for the Guardian released the password in a book

and that was that. Anybody could download the files and they did. It was the Guardian who created the massive security breach and caused the publications of names.

[arely staircase]

109. which they never would have had

If not for Manning. Could he not foresee such a possibility? That once he turned US diplomatic cables over to foreign nationals that just about anybody might end up in possession of the information.

[Luminous Animal]

118. So, what? Journalists receive classified info routinely.

Foreign nationals... hahaha!!! How McCarthy of you.

[arely staircase]

130. why do you think manning outed those dissidents

To get back to the issue at hand.

[Luminous Animal]

141. He didn't. The Guardian did. Do you think the NY Times publishes

classified info that they receive in it's entirety. The source doesn't redact, the publisher does. Before the Guardian published the password, the names on those cables were blocked out. When Wikileaks found out that their security had been breached, and that repressive foreign governments could (and would) download the info and possibly strike out against informers and dissidents, they decided to publish the cables in full to allow people to protect themselves from their government if they needed to.

And the article in your OP? It is as much opinion and surmising what might happen as it is news. There is nothing in the article about dissidents and actual harm coming to anyone. Just some reporter imagining that there might.

[arely staircase]

142. why did manning give their names to anyone?

nt

[Luminous Animal]

151. He didn't give names, he leaked cables.

He leaked them to a news organization who worked in partnership with other news organizations to research, redact, and publish. He didn't direct any of those news organizations to be derelict and publish the password. Two Guardian reporters (in a book they wrote) took that upon themselves.

How about you address the sloppyness of the article. I've read it several times and there is nothing about dissidents being targeted other than some maoists calling some people names. Hell, statists like Ann Coulter, do similar regularly.

[pnwmom]

93. It isn't. n/t

[4Q2u2]

19. Cue the crickets

BM's supporters are too busy on other threads comparing him to Gandhi, Jesus Christ and Buddha all rolled up in one.
Pay no attention to the Truth. He was a lousy soldier who when he did not get his way, set about on a course of revenge like a spoiled toddler. They also forget him assaulting an NCO, that he was found in a corner in the fetal position crying, but he was of sound mind. And it was all cause by what he witnessed, sorry he witnessed nothing. He watch videos from the comfort of his Air Conditioned office back at the FOB. Arm Chair quarterback.

[okaawhatever]

26. There should have been more of an investigation as to why he still had his clearance. nt

[atreides1]

30. Allegations or fact?

You bring up many interesting allegations, do you have any proof...besides your obvious dislike of Manning?

Just curious as to where you got your information from.

[4Q2u2]

39. Wiki

"On April 30, he posted on Facebook that he was utterly lost, and over the next few days that "Bradley Manning is not a piece of equipment," that he was "beyond frustrated," and "livid" after being "lectured by ex-boyfriend despite months of relationship ambiguity ..." On May 7, he seemed to spiral out of control. According to army witnesses, he was found curled into a fetal position in a storage cupboard, with a knife at his feet, and had cut the words "I want" into a vinyl chair. A few hours later he had an altercation with a female intelligence analyst, Specialist Jihrleah Showman, during which he punched her in the face. The brigade psychiatrist recommended a discharge, referring to an "occupational problem and adjustment disorder." His master sergeant removed the bolt from his weapon, and he was sent to work in the supply office, though at this point his security clearance remained in place. He was demoted from Specialist to Private First Class just two days before his arrest on May 26".

Wicked Wiki.

"Bradley Manning 'attacked female soldier and sent picture of himself as a woman'
Bradley Manning attacked a female soldier and sent his superiors a picture of himself dressed as a woman in the weeks before he was arrested on suspicion of handing thousands of classified files to WikiLeaks, a military court heard."

The UK Telegraph.

FORT MEADE, Md. — Army Pfc. Bradley Manning's former supervisor testified Tuesday that Manning "punched me in the face, unprovoked" during his Iraq deployment in 2010.

A day later, Manning was barred from the secure facility where he served with former Army Spc. Jihrleah Showman. Showman led the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, team that analyzed the local Shiite threat.

"He … displayed an uncontrollable behavior that was deemed untrustworthy at the time," said Showman, who testified via telephone.

The Army times.

Is that enough?

[Arctic Dave]

27. What did the Chinese think they were going to accomplish by going

to the US gov?

Seems a lot of the problems they have we help institute and then we ignore the rest.

[arely staircase]

31. trying to get a visa?

nt

[Arctic Dave]

32. So why are they worried about that.

Getting a Visa is a common practice.

[arely staircase]

47. for dissidents?

nt

[Arctic Dave]

107. So it goes back to my original post.

What did they think the US would?

We are part of the problem in China.

[hrmjustin]

108. They might not have known that or they were desperate. Either way this guy gave up

their names and that stinks to me.

[SidDithers]

33. He released the names, because he didn't know the names were in what he released...nt

Sid

[pnwmom]

90. With 251,000 cables he couldn't have known much about anything.

He was just lashing out, having a temper tantrum, releasing everything he could easily get to.

[arely staircase]

138. that is probably the most accurate and concise answer to my question

I doubt he set out to endanger the Chinese dissidents but he certainly was aware, or should have been, that such a thing was possible. I mean that is the kind of stuff that would be in embassy cables. As far as the temper tantrum business, this guy is alleged to have punched a woman in the face, so yeah.

[FarCenter]

35. In the no-secrets society, information wants to be free

When everything is a whistle, it all gets blown.

[arely staircase]

48. so you put all your personal info on the internet for everyone to see?

credit card numbers? passwords?

no secrets, right?

[FarCenter]

50. Credit card numbers and most passwords aren't secret

Every merchant you do business with has your credit card number.

Most web sites have your password. If you don't use different passwords for each site, then one site may have passwords to other sites you go to. Lots of people use the same username and password for multiple purposes -- which is a really bad idea.

[arely staircase]

56. My CC information is kept secret from you.

and yours from mine. So yes it is. There is a limited universe of people I share it with like the people you mentioned above. Hopefully there are no Bradley Mannings or otherwise "no-secret" "heroes" working for them.

[Cha]

75. This^^^^^^!

[Recursion]

102. No competent website stores passwords

You use a salted hash algorithm to verify them. Even the big Yahoo break was just off the shadow table, which the attackers then rainbowed for weak passwords.

[FarCenter]

105. Correct, but every time the user logs in, the password is sent to the web site

hopefully over an SSL encrypted session, but your mileage may vary. The web site then calculates the salted MD-5 or other algorithm and compares the result with what is stored in the hashed password table or database.

[Recursion]

154. Good point

This is why I stress to people the importance of encryption.

[Recursion]

101. So post your SSN, here

Information wants to be free, after all...

[warrprayer]

40. Better question

why is the NSA tapping everyones phones? We need more Bradley Mannings.

[arely staircase]

51. but not the subject of the op

This is an informal fallacy that occurs when assuming that, if one wrong is committed, then another wrong will cancel it out.
Speaker A: You shouldn't embezzle from your employer. It's against the law.
Speaker B: My employer cheats on their taxes. That's against the law, too!

The unstated premise is that breaking the law (or the wrong) is justified, as long as the other party also does so. It is often used as a red herring, or an attempt to change or distract from the issue. For example:
Speaker A: President Williams lied in his testimony to Congress. He should not do that.
Speaker B: But you are ignoring the fact that President Roberts lied in his Congressional testimony!

Even if President Roberts lied in his Congressional testimony, this does not establish a precedent that makes it acceptable for President Williams to do so as well. (At best, it means Williams is no worse than Roberts.) By invoking the fallacy, the contested issue of "lying" is ignored.

The tu quoque fallacy is a specific type of "two wrongs make a right". Accusing another of not practicing what they preach, while appropriate in some situations, does not in itself invalidate an action or statement that is perceived as contradictory.

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

[Cha]

78. No we don't need more idiots dumping information without know wth

it is.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

41. I think he released everything he got his hands on.

I don't think he read all those documents, so no basis for a decision. Just release everything. Consequences are for other people.

[MADem]

86. Indiscriminate dump. He didn't think about the consequences to others.

Either that, or he did, and he didn't care.

[Quantess]

96. I still feel really bad for the poor guy.

He should have used some discretion, but I think his heart was in the right place.

[Bonx]

155. Was his fist in the right place when he punched a woman in the face ?

nt

[Recursion]

100. And the opposition supporters in the Maldives

Your question is a good one

[arely staircase]

106. I am not familiar with the Maldives issue.

I do know the Taliban promised to give the documents a good going over and at least one man lost his life.

[railsback]

103. Maybe he lost track of his file dump

when he was punching that woman in the face.

[HiPointDem]

113. there sure is a determined manning attack here.

[hrmjustin]

114. Is he beyond criticism?

[arely staircase]

116. but specifically, what are your thought as to why he would out those Chinese dissidents?

nt

[GoneFishin]

122. It took the B. Manning haters a few hours to organize but they sure have piled on the

"Bradley Manning did not read all 250,000 pages before he released them so the crimes contained therein don't count" bandwagon.

[hrmjustin]

129. What is your opinion about the dissidents?

[GoneFishin]

137. If the story isn't being spun, then it sucks. It is disappointing.

It would be a check in the con column.

[BainsBane]

133. That makes it better

That he blindly dumped documents he knew little or nothing about? That certainly contradicts the idea of his being a whistle blower in advocacy of a particular cause.

[hrmjustin]

136. Well said!

[arely staircase]

146. +1

nt

[GoneFishin]

140. Uighurs are one of the groups that were locked up in Guantanamo for a decade even though

they were known to be completely innocent. One report stated that one of them was chained to the floor.

I can't imagine why the Pentagon didn't move heaven and earth to redact these names.

[arely staircase]

143. again, why do you think Manning released the names of Chinese dissidents?

nt

[Pelican]

144. Because fuck them.. That's why...

What is their comfort as compared to the need for Bradley Manning to take a shot at the Army?

[GoneFishin]

147. It is a loaded question, and a poison pill.

I doubt if anybody here feels good about such a thing possibly happening. Your intent seems to be to poison the well, and it seems to be working quite well on this thread.

Good for you.

What Bradley Manning did still took the kind of guts we don't see these days. He stood to gain nothing and lose everything. On the flip side I expect that the Apache double tap that killed those civilians is the tip of the iceberg.

How do you feel about our tax money being spent to deliberately cut civilians' bodies in half with machine gun fire?

[arely staircase]

148. So you have no opinion as to why Manning betrayed a bunch of Chinese dissidents?

nt

[whatchamacallit]

149. You got nothin with this angle

but you're not bright enough to know.

[alp227]

156. wow, i guess the US HAS good reason to lock him up now.

Manning ought to learn Chinese if he can somehow escape prison and head to China, whose anti-dissident government can now go after the dissidents thanks to his actions.

[arely staircase]

161. since he has pead guilty to very serious crimes

yes, the US has VERY goud reason to lock him up.

[Daniel537]

160. The internal affairs of a foreign country are none of our business.

Manning exposed war crimes committed by his nation. That was obviously his biggest concern, and rightfully so.

[arely staircase]

162. what war crimes were exposed by the betrayal of Chinese human rights activists?

nt