Bradley Manning 'hailed a hero' on arrest anniversary

[Robb]

http://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/9079075.Bradley_Manning__hailed_a_hero__on_arrest_anniversary/">Bradley Manning 'hailed a hero' on arrest anniversary

A YEAR to the day that a young American soldier with strong Pembrokeshire links was arrested and accused of leaking classified information, some internationally known advocates held a teleconference to discuss his case.

The Western Telegraph was in on the call as WikiLeaks editor in chief Julian Assange and the man at the heart of leaking Pentagon Papers relating to the Vietnam war, Daniel Ellsberg, spoke of former Tasker Milward pupil Bradley Manning as a “hero.”

(snip)

...Mr Ellsberg said: “I was the Bradley Manning of my day,” adding that he admired the 23-year-old.

(snip)

...Mr Assange described the treatment of Bradley, described as abusive by Amnesty International, as “a sledge hammer to crack a nut”.

He added: “Bradley Manning, like all true heroes did not crack.”

Read more: http://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/9079075.Bradley_Manning__hailed_a_hero__on_arrest_anniversary/

[Warrior Dash]

1. Benedict Arnold was also a hero to many...

[Kurovski]

3. And some people think Eggs Benedict was named for Arnold.

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

Did you guess which thing was not like the others?
Did you guess which thing just doesn't belong?
If you guessed this one is not like the others,
Then you're absolutely...right!

EDIT: I'm guessing Ellsberg has more experience than either of us in these matters.

K&R

[Warrior Dash]

8. You are right about Ellsberg's experience...

However, Manning appears to have violated the law as well as his oath...

I, Bradley Manning, do solemnly swear 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.

I know...I know, to expect a man to honor his word is sooooo old-fashioned. But the long and the short of it is: There were other options that Manning could have pursued if he was an honorable man.

[EFerrari]

9. Honorable men aren't complicit in covering up government corruption and crime. n/t

[zacherystaylor]

12. Nazi precedent

The Nazi precedent is supposed to indicate that we aren't supposed to obey illegal orders and the real traitor is the one that leads our country into illegal wars not the one who prevents it or at least tries to assuming that Manning actually did release information about the criminal activities of those in power.

[Warrior Dash]

14. Okay, let's assume that Bush, Obama, et al are all engaged some sort of Nazi-like conspiracy

to take over the world.

Now, you are Bradley Manning. What would you do? Would you release a cable regarding: China cautiously seeks to expand commercial interests in Ecuador. http://wikileaks.org/cable/2010/01/10QUITO37.html

Claus von Stauffenberg was an honorable man, Bradley Manning is not.

[zacherystaylor]

22. You missed the poiint

I haven't kept track of all the things that Manning has allegedly been doing; however I know that the US government has been trying to withhold or distort an enormous amount of information about their own corruption or incompetence.

In a sincere democracy the government would make all the information the public needs to make important decisions. For the most part this should include foreign policy; there are some potential exceptions but the government isn't abiding by any reasonable exceptions and it is only because of the whistle blowers and sincere investigators that the public can access the information they need to know that the government routinely starts wars and kills innocent people based on lies.

We have an enormous amount of evidence to indicate that the government is handling the situation in a corrupt manner but you and many other people are apparently not under any obligation to ackowledge inconvenient facts. That doesn't mean that the rest of us should stand by silently while these crimes continue.

[Warrior Dash]

28. That our government is corrupt and incompetent goes without saying.

I also agree that there is ample evidence to suggest that our foreign policy is misguided at best and fraudulent at worst. However, the young men and women who are in the field of action did not make the decisions that put them there. So, while I fully support the idea of keeping the public informed, I strongly oppose making information public that could make our troops jobs more dangerous, until after they have been withdrawn.

I suspect that if you had a son or daughter that had been deployed to fight one of these unconstitutional wars, you would feel the same way.

[zacherystaylor]

31. Ending the war should be top priority

To the best of my knowledge the information that has been leaked has not endangered the troops except for the fact that they have incited more violence. However this isn't quite right since the victims already knew about this so the incitement of the violence almost certainly wasn't the releasing of the information but the criminal activity conducted in the first place.

If the enemy were conducting atrocities it wouldn't be considered wrong to expose them. This is a double standard by those with the most power and control of the propaganda machine. The most powerful people should be held to the highest standards of scrutiny and that can't happen if they keep their crimes secret.

[Warrior Dash]

33. So, do you think the incitement of violence helps our troops?

The most powerful people should be held to the highest standards of scrutiny

Do you think that information which could endanger the lives of troops should be released while they are in the field of action? Or do you believe, like I do, that the lives of our troops are more valuable than than knowing about something the instant it occurs?

[JackRiddler]

41. Exposing wrongdoing is not an "incitement to violence" and will protect more troops...

especially if, as a result, the troops are brought home.

[zacherystaylor]

77. Exposing war crimes helps prevent more war

It doesn't do more to increase the violence it decreases it. When they retaliate they're increasing it.

The information the public needs to realize that these wars aren't doing the job they are allegedly intended to do should be available to the public so they can stand up to the officials that have betrayed their trust. Trusting warmongering deceivers only leads to more violence.

[JackRiddler]

40. I would consider it my highest duty as a parent to make sure my son or daughter would...

never be so deployed.

If I had a child who nevertheless made such a mistake, and was persuaded by the "service" propaganda of what is primarily an imperial expeditionary force, I would pray that my child would not become a beast or a machine, would not murder, would refuse illegal orders.

[Warrior Dash]

45. As would I, but what about the poor kid who has no other choice?

He doesn't matter, right? He is not as important as your "cause."

[JackRiddler]

50. It's not a "cause." It's humanity not to bomb other countries.

Who says the poor kid has no choice?

It's time to tell all the "poor kids": Joining up with the military force to be a tool for imperialism is no choice. The worst thing these vultures of the young do is to narrow "the choices" down to that. Your condemnation of the society that does that is radical indeed, to say there is no other choice. Sounds like a place in need of a revolution, not a bigger army.

[Warrior Dash]

53. That is easy position for someone of affluence to hold.

However, for people of less means, the military can provide an opportunity to get a college education.

As far as revolution goes: When they take away our right to vote, I'll be at your side, ready to fight our enemies.

[JackRiddler]

65. Now you're really cranking up your projection machine. You know nothing about me...

or which of us is the more affluent. That's just an ad hominem attack; you disagree with a position, therefore it must come not from principle but from a kind of person.

Countries of less means than this one provide college educations at lower cost, without seducing or forcing youth into becoming soldiers for an imperial army. If it's true that there are places where the military is the only route to college, then that is a severe condemnation of this country. As I've told you already. However, your right to go to college is not an absolute. It does not take precedence over the right to life of the 14 Afghan boys, girls and women exploded by US forces a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/29/afghanistans-karzai-gives-u-s-final-warning-stop-killing-civilians/

What's their chance to go to college?

Your rhetoric mixes economic necessity and heroic order-taking as excuses for serving a machinery of murder. You would better serve this youth by setting yourself up at the nearest recruitment station with a sign urging them not to sign up.

As for the military, I'll take Smedley Butler's word over yours.

Finally, the last thing "they" will take away is your right to vote. (They did, actually, in 2000 and 2004, and in who knows how many other local cases.) But they've been busy rendering it worthless and taking away everything else. You don't get to decide anything economic or political in your community or world unless you happen to control investment capital (or are among those privileged with the right to create it out of air). The rest of you are expendable.

[zacherystaylor]

78. Eugene Debs said it best

Eugene Debs “The master class has always brought a war, and the subject class has always fought the battle.”

This was true then and it is true now. the way to change it is to educate the working class so they can recognize the lies and help implement a sincere democracy. Ideally this would involve election reform which enables the public to control t5he system. Many people don't seem to recognize the importance of this which is why I try to bring it up once in a while like in this string, if you're interested, which hasn't received much attention:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x517857

[JackRiddler]

15. I'm glad you quoted that oath, because it doesn't mention anything about remaining silent...

when he witnesses war crimes. I submit that when he exposed widespread criminality and systemic corruption, he supported and defended the Constitution. In the oath, supporting and defending the Constitution comes before "obey the orders." It is admittedly a paradox, since the men who have done the most to undermine and damage that Constitution are, in fact, the ones issuing the orders that Bradley Manning was expected to obey. Given this paradox, Bradley Manning showed bravery in the way he chose to honor his oath.

It seems to me the conduct of the helicopter killers in particular, and of the commanders civilian and military of the Afghan and Iraq wars in general, suggest domestic enemies to the interests of the United States. The war criminals go uninvestigated, the man who reported them to the only sovereign of this nation -- the people -- is put through a brutal treatment.

I notice you don't say anything about the "Collateral Murder" video or the releases of the Afghan and Iraq war logs, as you could hardly make the case that these are trivial in nature. How paradoxical your own case must feel to you, when you combine bloodthirsty accusations of treason against Manning with conflicting claims that the cables he allegedly released were in fact trivial. If they were trivial, why were they classified going back 10 years or more? Over-classification of trivial matters is also an impediment to democratic government or the rule of law. No transparency = no democracy, including on the things you consider trivial.

Of course, your example meant to show triviality of the secrets revealed completely mischaracterizes what has been revealed in the content of the State Department cables. These put on display for the US and world public an out-of-control, unaccountable empire bullying the world's nations into compliance with the interests of US corporations and policies out of line with the stated public policies (thus meaning: USG lies). Anyone interested can now check the many stories corroborating such often criminal behavior by the USG and read the documentation at wikileaks.ch. You have to close your eyes and ears to it, but the hits keep on coming, like this week's revelations through The Nation of USG lobbying against even an extremely low minimum wage proposal in Haiti and assisting in essentially fraudulent elections there. A primer in many serious stories of USG wrongdoing that came out through the State Department cables, for those who are interested, can be found in the links collection in my sig line (first link).

It's a stark choice, I know. Do you oppose the unlimited power of government to lie to you, or do you condemn the man who exposes the lies? What you choose says how you stand in these times.

[Warrior Dash]

16. The problem is what you define as "war crimes" is a normal element of war.

You talk about defending the Constitution, but it is a fact that some of the information released by Manning aided the enemy. How do you reconcile that with "defending the Constitution?"

And while agree with much of what you say regarding the classification of the "trivial," releasing information that compromises the lives of American servicemen trumps everything. He betrayed his fellow soldiers and now he will be judged by them.

[JackRiddler]

17. There is no "normal element of war"

All you're saying by that turn of phrase is that war has been normalized, but that doesn't make it right. War and most of the actions conducted in war are by definition criminal. Within the USG, the advocates of war have run the show, and made war into the nation's most important industry, but that doesn't make it right.

Starting a war was called the supreme international crime, under the principles that guided the Nuremberg verdict. The United States is party to treaties that ban war. These are the law of the land, thanks to ratification by the Senate. These treaties are ignored, but they are still law, if law is to mean anything. The Kellogg-Briand pact, according to the Constitution, is as binding as the words to the oath taken by military service personnel.

It is not a fact that anything allegedly released by Manning has hurt US soldiers or aided the "enemy." That's a case you would need to make, that I submit is nothing more than the unfounded assertion of propagandists. You show no evidence for it.

Even Robert Gates said no danger had come to US troops from the Wikileaks releases. However, even if this turned out to be true one day in some isolated case, can you argue truly that the exposure of crimes has been rendered wrong? No. The US government is the aggressor in a series of illegal wars that it launched, by definition most of its actions are criminal. Those who expose those actions are true to the Constitution. It is the duty of military personnel to refuse illegal orders.

The people the US military has been killing under orders are not my "enemy." The "enemies" have been defined for the American people by the criminal architects of war and their lies. Those who have defined a series of false enemies are the true domestic enemies to the Constitution and to the security of the people. It is awesome, planet-sized hypocrisy to speak of Manning's supposed "violation" of his oath, while the pilots of the attack helicopter who shot a bunch of unarmed men who were milling around on the street (and their rescuers) are free, and while the architects of the WMD lies and war of aggression against the Iraqi people are not just free but living off the rewards from their crimes.

[Warrior Dash]

18. I don't disagree with much of what you have written. But the fact of the matter is that

human beings have been "normalized" to the concept of war for thousands of years. Sure, the world would be much better off without it, but your contention that war is a criminal act is only valid when uttered by the winners when identifying the losers. In other words, might makes right.

I strongly opposed the the initiation of the wars we are presently engaged in. However, once we, as a nation, have made the decision to go to war, I believe that we should do whatever is necessary to annihilate our opponents and bring our troops home as soon as possible. And that means we should not engage ourselves the mindless notion of "nation building." Soldiers are warriors, not social workers. To be clear, with the possible exception of Afghanistan (they attacked us first), there is no logical or legal reason for the US to be engaged in any wars at this time.

You mentioned defending the Constitution, well if we actually followed the requirements of the Constitution, we would not be mired in our present entanglements.

Regardless of what you or I think about Bradley Manning, the fact is that he betrayed his oath of enlistment, and the trust instilled to him by the Department of Defense. That includes the betrayal of the rights he was given as an intelligence specialist with a security clearance. Bradley Manning is, by definition and historical reference, a traitor.

[JackRiddler]

20. I contest a number of your statements...

human beings have been "normalized" to the concept of war for thousands of years.

This is not true in all cases. There have been many long periods in many places where wars did not occur, or where warrior classes were off waging them amongst themselves, while most of the people barely even knew these existed. The modern concept of "total war" has not always applied. The latter was true of the US in the period between the world wars, and for most of the post-Civil War period (notwithstanding the Indian wars which were at a great remove from most of the US population, more so in some ways than Afghanistan today).

Almost every major war the US has engaged in has, at some point, become unpopular and acquired a strong opposition.

Note that your statement about what is normal would also apply to slavery. Would the fact that slavery has often been normal make it less criminal, or somehow more inevitable? I'm in favor of finally achieving a civilization worthy of the name.

However, once we, as a nation, have made the decision to go to war, I believe that we should do whatever is necessary to annihilate our opponents and bring our troops home as soon as possible.

This is the excuse with which the leaders have sought to extend to the bitter end every unjust war, ever. It was used by the various sides in World War I. It was the German attitude in World War II. It is illegitimate. There is a higher law. The duty of the soldier in an illegitimate war is to refuse orders. Many US soldiers refused orders and even mutinied in Vietnam, and they were right, and their morally right decisions helped to put an end to the war. In an illegal war waged primarily on civilians, the soldier of an invading power has no right to put his own life ahead of the lives of the invaded people.

War remains illegal except in self-defensive response to an attack. "Annihilation" is an immoral and illegal purpose for war. If it included nuclear strikes, would you consider it the higher calling to follow orders or to disobey them?

"We" as a nation did not make the decision to go to war. Wars aren't even declared by the Congress any more, let alone subject to a popular will. The current Libya action hasn't even got a vote yet, more than 60 days after initiation (required by War Powers Act). This is how the system works: Elements within the executive and in the broader MIC and intel complex plan the wars they want, set up some lies to justify them, and usually start them before "we" are even aware of it.

To be clear, with the possible exception of Afghanistan (they attacked us first),

Afghanistan never attacked the United States. According to the official story of September 11th, the plot originated and was masterminded from apartments in Karachi, by a handful of men unaffiliated with any government. (I don't believe that, but that's the official story.) Planning was carried out by other men, all supposedly unaffiliated with any government, in Kuala Lumpur, Hamburg, San Diego and Las Vegas. Three of the alleged hijack pilots trained at flight schools in Florida. The alleged muscle hijackers were recruited out of Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Most of the alleged hijackers went through a training college in Afghanistan, where their supposed spiritual leader was harbored, but he, OBL, had little to do with the plot. This attack, according to the story as told in the 9/11 Commmission report, was structured as an urban-based, cross-border covert operation by a non-state network. A crime, but not an act of war, and nothing that war can answer or prevent.

Thus neither the nation nor the state of Afghanistan (such as it was) attacked the United States. Furthermore, after Sept. 11th the Taliban offered to negotiate handing over OBL, and were rebuffed. The US government had developed plans to attack Afghanistan throughout 2001, prior to September, and these were ready for a go-ahead on September 9th, with the offensive planned for October, when the real offensive started.

Finally, the US has been intervening militarily in Afghanistan since at least 1979 (when covert operations were initiated against the then government at least six months before the Soviets invaded to prop it up.)

You present a paradox:

When talking about the "nation" going to war, you treat the laws and treaties that ban and limit war as though these were naive, given that it's going to happen and has always happened. You seem to think it is realistic and self-interested and "annihilate" (a criminal intent) "opponents" (pretty broad definition of acceptable targets), and not let international law, treaties and the Constitution get in the way, once "we as a nation" have made that decision. You're ready to allow for all kinds of violations on the ground, because war is a mess.

But when it comes to Manning, you suddenly discover the precision and power of literal words, and deem it terrible that he "violated" (actually, I have argued that he upheld) certain words that the Defense Department considers holy -- even as the words of the Constitution and the various treaties and laws banning and limiting war are violated constantly by this same government.

BTW, please take a stance on the acts shown in the helicopter video released last year by Wikileaks ("Collateral Murder"), if you want to continue with this discussion. Thanks.

[Demeter]

23. I rec this Post

[JackRiddler]

27. Thank you, Demeter.

[Warrior Dash]

29. You can challenge my opinions, but you cannot contest the facts.

This timeline of wars from 1194 BC to present clearly demonstrates that your opinions regarding the normalization of war are incorrect. Again, I would prefer that you were right on this one, but the historical facts or reality beg to differ. http://www.timelineindex.com/content/select/1311/912,1385,1311

You are also wrong to assert that we, as a nation did not make the decision to go to war. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. You, me and anyone who casts a vote for an elected official is responsible for the decisions made by the people we choose to represent us. You may not want to confront reality, but "We the People" have no one else to blame for these mindless wars. It's on you and me Jack.

Regarding Afghanistan: If a government of one nation hosts a militia and allows them to train for, plan and attack another nation, the hosting nation is responsible for that action. In view of those specifics, there is no logical way to deny that Afghanistan attacked the US on 9-11. I'm not going to delve heavily into the question of whether the CIA directly supported the Taliban because although there is no direct evidence, I do not trust our government (who knows). However, if you are suggesting that Afghanistan's problems began in 1979, and were caused by the US, you are not familiar with the history of Afghanistan.

You also seem to be suggesting that there is a civilized manner in which to wage war. That, my friend, is a statement of paradoxical absurdity--the term "civilized war" is an oxymoron of the highest order! I hate war! But if this country is going to ask your sons or my daughters to put their lives on the line, I expect the tactics we employ to be of the nature that will give them the best chance to be alive when the horror of it all comes to an end. It is immoral to ask our citizens to fight and/or die in a war that we have no intentions of winning.

"BTW, please take a stance on the acts shown in the helicopter video"

I'm not sure if you want me to take a stance, or sit in judgment. Because if you want me to judge, that would require for me to be on that helicopter, with the crew all day, or all week (month), to gain the proper frame of reference--a battle hardened bloody reference.

Having said that, I have a hard time understanding how it could have occurred during daylight hours, with good visibility and no incoming fire. Therefore, I find it repulsing. The video clearly demonstrates the horror that can occur when a decision to engage is made prematurely, without properly identifying the targets. What bothers me most though is the anesthetized nature of it all...no emotion...no sympathy...just death. The deplorably regrettable normalization of war.

[JackRiddler]

30. An absurd standard for judgement.

You wrote: "I'm not sure if you want me to take a stance, or sit in judgment. Because if you want me to judge, that would require for me to be on that helicopter, with the crew all day, or all week (month), to gain the proper frame of reference--a battle hardened bloody reference."

That's crazy. Not calling any names here. It's just an inherently insane stance.

By that standard we can't say anyone ever did anything wrong, ever. Certainly any war action is thus justified, or at least impossible for anyone to judge, since no one can meet the standard you suggest, unless they were warriors in the same unit and went through the same prior experiences personally. Certainly all civilians should shut up forever, in the view your standard implies. This is carte blanche for every possible war atrocity. Would you be willing to grant the same standard to the Afghan fighter shooting at the Americans? You haven't been fighting foreign invaders alongside him for 30 years, so you lack the proper frame of reference. Can you judge the German soldier on the Russian front? Or are only American soldiers to receive this special privilege of immunity from being judged by anyone who didn't have the same experiences... before, in this case, machine-gunning a group of civilians, obvious non-combatants milling around in plain sight beneath a helicopter, obviously not imagining that the helicopter would ever have a reason to see them as an enemy!

Otherwise, you're not interested in any history that doesn't justify your view. There have been thousands of wars in thousands of years, yes. There have also been periods of peace, when war was remote. The frequency of war does not make it an inevitability, or justify it, any more than the frequency of slavery (which was at least as commonplace as war until very recently, in the long view).

I'm for the advent of civilization. War is a sickness, a plague, an evil.

And again, your paradox: In your world no rules should apply to the warriors who obey their superiors, or apparently even those who go beyond those orders and commit their own atrocities. They may do anything, it's all chalked up to the practical realities of war. But Bradley Manning "violated an oath"? Please!

[Warrior Dash]

32. That is precisely why those without the proper frame of reference

will not be permitted to judge either of these matters. Similarly, that is why those with systemic biases are excluded from judging matters in civilian courts. Simply put, they are not capable of rendering a fair and impartial judgement.

It is interesting to note that you completely disregarded my expressions of repulsion regarding the incident. Rather, you prefer laud as heroic, the actions of a traitor. However, as you will learn upon the conclusion of Manning’s court martial, he will be judged very differently by his peers, i.e., those who are qualified to render judgment.

Likewise, you ignored my comments regarding the fact that you and I bear a certain degree of responsibility for our country being engaged in (3) unconstitutional wars. I accept the responsibility, what about you, Jack?

Would you be willing to grant the same standard to the Afghan fighter shooting at the Americans?

There is no need to grant the enemy anything other than death.

[whatchamacallit]

37. "There is no need to grant the enemy anything other than death"

I'm curious how your monochromatic view applies to conflicts like the American Civil War...

[Warrior Dash]

38. Since more Americans were killed in that war than all other wars Americans

have been involved in combined, the answer should be abundantly clear.

[JackRiddler]

39. What does it mean to accept responsibility for the USG engaging in wars based on lies?

I get it, you have a lot of arguments that will go like this: We all live here. We all vote (or don't vote) and are thus responsible for here (as though voting has power over everything else, but anyway). We all (almost all) eat and enjoy consumer goods here. Therefore what the system does is all of our responsibility. If a decision is made by the elected civilian government to wage war (even one that wasn't elected, like Bush? even one that lies or invents the casus belli?), then we're all responsible. Where you seem to want that to head is that we therefore all must support the war, obey our respective orders, and don't judge the actions of the military waging the war. That part is bullshit.

I bear my share of the responsibility.

For me, fulfilling my responsibility meant protesting. I accept blame for not having done more, for going on with my normal life after the protests in each case failed to stop the initiation of war. People are being massacred in many countries in my name, and I don't do enough to oppose the government under which I live, the officials of which bears the primary responsbility.

Those who follow illegal orders in the course of illegal invasions bear a greater responsibility. Those who refuse illegal orders or who seek to bear less of a responsibility.

You can call Manning a traitor all you like. That will indeed be the judgement of the military kangaroo court, which does not consist of his peers but of men who lack his imagination and understanding of the consequences of their actions. He is a hero, and he did the right thing to expose the wrongdoing of the USG and its military.

Those who engage in recruitment for these wars bear a much greater responsibility. Those who seduce the youth who might have been persuaded otherwise to go and be killers for imperialism bear a much greater responsibility.

Do you have the same excuses for My Lai, by the way?

[Warrior Dash]

44. You are pretty good at expressing yourself, but you are not very good at reading minds.

You do not "get it," for you do not understand how our republic is supposed to work. Let me try to explain. Take for example, last night's GOP debate. I was listening and listening...and listening...and was astonished that the subject of the wars did not come up until they were nearly two hours into the thing. Now, I ask you, if this was 1968, do you think it would have taken that long to get to the subject of war? Why not?

I'll tell you why. Because we have collectively abdicated our civic responsibility to keep ourselves informed and allowed ourselves to be betrayed by a parade of self-serving idiots who promise to take things from other people and give them to us. Instead of being seekers of truth, we have allowed ourselves to be misinformed by accepting the mindless drivel dished out by mainstream media. We think the problem is with the other guys representative, not ours. And so we keep voting for the same thing and expecting different results. I think they call that insanity, Jack.

You will not get very far with your attempt to make into some sort of war monger, for nothing could be further from the truth. But unlike you Jack, I don't pretend to believe that war is "civilized." I think it better defined as intrinsically uncivilized horror. However, in the words of George Patten: "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

If I were over there fighting, I would be trying to ensure that it went exactly that way. And guys like Bradley Manning are an obstacle to that end.

[JackRiddler]

51. Projection.

Point me to where I said war is civilized, or is supposed to be civilized.

Anyway, I'll leave you to your paradox of condemning war as uncivilized horror and then advocating "annihilation" of the "enemy," and to your evident inability to see humanity except through an American lens, where only the American soldiers have an absolute right to life within the borders of the countries in which they are invaders. If you have a problem with those who do not value the lives of the US soldiers, you will find them not in Bradley Manning's cell (or in my posts) but at the Pentagon, and among the war planners in government, and among all those who support or are indifferent to the perpetual war. They are the ones who send the young to be killers, or to die.

[Warrior Dash]

54. I do "have a problem with those who do not value the lives of the US soldiers."

However, unlike you, I do not exclude any of the perpetrators.

[EFerrari]

43. Um, Afghanistan did not attack us on 9/11, that's incorrect.

And Bush refused the Taliban's offer to turn over bin Laden to a third party.

Afghanistan was clearly another one of Bush's wars of choice.

[Warrior Dash]

46. That's illogical; furthermore, the Taliban's offer was not unconditional.

Now, Afghanistan is clearly another one of Obama's wars of choice.

[EFerrari]

47. Where is the illogic? Thnx.

[Warrior Dash]

52. Do you agree with the following statement?

On April 17, 1961, the US attacked Cuba.

[EFerrari]

55. So, you are unable to point to any illogic in my post?

[Warrior Dash]

58. Answer the question and I will make it clear as a bell.

[EFerrari]

59. That's what I thought. n/t

[Warrior Dash]

60. Indeed...

Checkmate.

[whatchamacallit]

34. What he said

Awesome, Jack! :thumbsup:

[fascisthunter]

35. boom... right there should end the argument

[OnyxCollie]

49. Thanks for the link.

Bookmarked.

[zacherystaylor]

2. I usually don't do hero worship but....

I usually don't do hero worship but if I were to make an exception this might be it. Hero worship is usually used as a way to get the public to worship those in authority and the people that stand up to these authorities are rarely ever described as heroes. In some cases when they are they often go to the other extreme. There hasn't been enough time to know if Manning would be inclined to do this but I would give him the benefit of the doubt. There has been enough time for Daniel Ellsberg and based on the information available to me he doesn't seem to have abused his "hero status" among some people.

[ClarkUSA]

4. I finally agree with Assange on one thing... Bradley Manning is "a nut" alright.

Manning is also a traitor who I hope gets what he deserves: plenty of jail time with no special privileges accorded to him.

If he had done this during earlier periods of American history, he would have been shot.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Deservedly so. Too bad there aren't more like him.

[Arctic Dave]

6. Bradley Manning is true American Hero.

I hope he gets what he deserves, a statue of him in Washington DC on the Mall. Anyone who says different is a jackboot fascist.




Fuck yeah!

[KittyWampus]

7. He's not a hero, he's an idiot.

[EFerrari]

10. What is the media not telling us about Bradley Manning (short video)

http://www.queerty.com/what-is-the-media-not-telling-us-about-bradley-manning-20110610/?utm_source=wordtwit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wordtwit

[tekisui]

11. A true hero, indeed. Hard to believe he has been held a year so far.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Well, be fair, Lt. Calley had to spend a whole weekend in the stockade.

Followed by 6 months of house arrest.

But, he only killed a bunch of people which pales in comparison to embarrassing bigshots.

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. Most definitely a hero

[msanthrope]

19. Does this mean Assange is going to fork over the money raised on Bradley Manning's back?

Millions taken in by Wikileaks and Assange---

and only 15 k to Manning's defense fund.

(and the grand jury in VA goes on. More subpoenas this week.)

[seabeyond]

21. criminal. nt

[krabigirl]

25. The criminals are the ones Bankrupting us for imperialism overseas.

[seabeyond]

26. ya. they are too. nt

[OnyxCollie]

48. Are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney criminals? nt

[seabeyond]

57. yes. i think they are. nt

[OnyxCollie]

61. Okay.

Explain this to me.

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#ixzz1NCOYSWZs

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: 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.

Holder Says He Will Not Permit the Criminalization of Policy Differences
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7410267&page=1

As lawmakers call for hearings and debate brews over forming commissions to examine the Bush administration's policies on harsh interrogation techniques, Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed to a House panel that intelligence officials who relied on legal advice from the Bush-era Justice Department would not be prosecuted.

"Those intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and in good faith and in reliance on Department of Justice opinions are not going to be prosecuted," he told members of a House Appropriations Subcommittee, reaffirming the White House sentiment. "It would not be fair, in my view, to bring such prosecutions."

Either you are wrong, and George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are not criminals; or

you are right, and the Obama administration is complicit in aiding and abetting the crimes committed by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, by making sure no

investigations/prosecutions take place, either here or abroad.

Which is it?

[seabeyond]

62. he had said before election he was not going back and investigating bushco. NOTHING NEW. nt

[OnyxCollie]

63. And you're okay with that?

You know that Bush and Cheney are criminals.

I assume you believe that President Obama knows that Bush and Cheney are criminals.

So when President Obama says he's "not going back and investigating bushco;" and the Obama administration threatens to dampen relations with Spain because of a concern that a Spanish investigation of former bush intelligence officials for torture crimes might lead to higher officials, possibly bush or cheney being indicted; and Attorney General Eric Holder says he's not going to criminalize "policy differences" and thinks it wouldn't be "fair" to prosecute former intelligence officials, what does that make you think? Sounds good? 2+2=5?

Even though YOU KNOW bush and cheney are criminals, and YOU KNOW THEY KNOW bush and cheney are criminals, you are willing to accept the Obama administration's allowance of bush and cheney to lie the nation into war for the benefit of big oil, at the expense of civil liberties, taxpayer dollars, and military and civilian lives.

You are willing to allow crimes of torture to go unpunished.

You are willing to allow indefinite detention of detainees who never even got a trial.

You are willing to allow mercenaries like Blackwater to kill civilians with impunity.

Do you have any principles? Are you just an authoritarian follower, unable to think for herself and willing to accept anything she is told? Are you a sheep?

Pathetic.

[seabeyond]

67. i htought it was repugs that resorted to so much name calling ect... in argument. nt

[OnyxCollie]

68. I'll take that as a "Yes."

You are incapable of thinking for yourself.

[seabeyond]

69. what you can take it for, is the lack to have a discussion with a person that

applies all kinds of preconceived notions and answers for yourself, without needing any discussion from me.

you are no different in your argument than repugs i discuss with.

[OnyxCollie]

70. I thought it was repugs who blindly followed their leaders

and willfully accepted contradictions in logic.

You've proven that wrong.

Authoritarianism is not bound by party ID.

[seabeyond]

71. you make accusations you are clueless about. it has nothing to do with obama, but manning

and what he did. a concept that seems to be beyond you.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seabeyond]

74. more insults from the wiki people. you people are a joke, with your god like cult and infatution

of this man. talk about being lead on a leash, lapping him up.

[OnyxCollie]

75. The sheep goes, "Baa."

[seabeyond]

76. yes they do. that has been my big issue with wiki is christ walking on water

since day one.

[JackRiddler]

42. The way the military has treated him? Of course, very criminal.

[seabeyond]

56. bradley is a criminal, not a hero. nt

[JackRiddler]

64. That's Mr. Manning to you.

[fascisthunter]

36. He's an American Hero who Sacrificed his freedom so We Would Know the Truth

our government and it's military agenda is corrupt to the core.

[JackRiddler]

66. kick

[JackRiddler]

79. & kick

[JackRiddler]

80. & kick