In essence, Bradley Manning is Stauffenberg.

[redgreenandblue]

International law defines "aggression" as the ultimate war-crime from which all other crimes follow. As the USA was the aggressor-state in Iraq, each and every action against its armed forces or the political leadership, in principle, were covered by international law as being legal and morally legitimate. This is not a "far left fantasy", these are the principles established by the Allied Forces after the second World War.
Per definition, there is no way in which "aiding the enemy" could have been a crime during the Iraq war.

The German Bundeswehr even recognizes this today, and thus honors Stauffenberg as a role-model.

[G_j]

1. Justice Robert L. Jackson, Chief U.S. Nuremberg Tribunal Prosecutor.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Robert L. Jackson was the Chief U.S. Nuremberg Tribunal Prosecutor.

On August 12, 1945, Justice Jackson stated the Tribunal’s conclusions prohibiting aggressive war.

“We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy."


edit: link to full statement:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/jack02.htm

[redgreenandblue]

2. Thanks.

[msanthrope]

3. Um, no. Manning is charged with aiding the enemy, Al Qaeda. nt

[redgreenandblue]

4. His actions happened in the context of the Iraq war.

They were a response to the things he witnessed there. That the USA had additional enemies at the time is inconsequential.

[msanthrope]

5. Sure. I hope his lawyer tries to argue that. Helping Al Qaeda was inconsequential.

I am sure it will work.

[redgreenandblue]

6. Manning will not receive a just trial.

Anything else than setting him free will be a miscarriage of justice. He is guilty of nothing. He opposed an aggressor state which was in the process of waging a war of aggression with the means that were at his disposal. He was correct to do so, by the standards of Nuremberg.

[msanthrope]

30. It's unfortunate for him that he chose to volunteer, then. nt

[brooklynite]

76. Have you considered offering your services to the DOD?

It would streamline military justice considerably if you could opine on which criminal cases were legitimate and which were not.

[redgreenandblue]

92. The DOD should not be adjudicating this.

This is part of my point. Issues surrounding the Iraq war should be settled in international courts. The USA, as being the aggressor, has forfeited the right to adjudicate such issues.

[AnalystInParadise]

95. Are you for real?

Manning is a U.S. citizen and a military member, he leaked data from military equipment about military issues on a military base while serving in the military. The DOD is the only organization that should be hearing this case. I don't even know what to say to you. Are you freaking being serious? I don't know how any logical, thinking person knowing the facts of this case, could ever think anyone but the DOD should be hearing this case.

[G_j]

8. that's what the prosecution may be alleging,

Last edited Tue Jun 4, 2013, 03:25 AM - Edit history (1)

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates during a news conference shortly after Manning’s arrest.

“Problems identified and the issues raised in these documents relating to the war in Afghanistan have been well known in and out of government for some time,” Gates said in 2010. “These documents represent a mountain of raw data and individual impressions, most several years old, devoid of context or analysis. They do not represent official positions or policy. And they do not, in my view, fundamentally call into question the efficacy of our current strategy in Afghanistan.”

[Recursion]

14. Gates is talking about the DoD powerpoints, which is one of the 4 things he's charged with

He's also charged with:

* Releasing the gunship video (which ended up confirming the initial report, that the helicopter shot a group of armed men)
* Releasing the State Department cables (which, unlike the DoD dump, did get some people put in jail and worse
* Leaving a backdoor in SIPRnet

[JDPriestly]

78. But if the entire Iraq War was illegal, and it may well have been and

might be deemed as such if we permitted an international tribune to conduct a war crimes trial, then the gunship video would be releasing evidence of the broader war crime.

As for the State Department cables, why in the world was he given access to them? Why weren't they kept more confidential? Why was access given to such a low level soldier who was not in the diplomatic corps?

Same for the SIPRnet. Why was he given the possibility of leaving a backdoor open to it?

If he is found guilty, shouldn't some of his superior officers also be held responsible?

As the Guardian wrote, soldiers who killed innocent people like the children in the video in which the reporter was killed are free while Manning is in jail. Even if what he did was technically wrong and/or technically criminal, he certainly wasn't the only or worst criminal. There were many, many worse.

[msanthrope]

32. The Taliban thanked Wikileaks for the leads---

That prediction may have been proven correct. A spokesperson named Zabihullah Mujahid who represents the Taliban, said that the group's leadership was thankful for the leaks and was pouring over the leaked documents searching for the names of the U.S.'s supporters in Afghanistan.

Mujahid states, "We are studying the report. We knew about the spies and people who collaborate with U.S. forces. We will investigate through our own secret service whether the people mentioned are really spies working for the U.S. If they are U.S. spies, then we know how to punish them."

The Taliban spokesperson bragged of past killings of local officials which he claims were informants. He even recalls one occasion in which Taliban officers strapped "two alleged traitors to explosives before detonating them in public." Other "traitors" have been murdered by means such as beheadings, shootings, or hangings.

Like journalists, the U.S. government says it tries to protect its sources and supporters. Defense Secretary Gates commented, "I spent most of my life in the intelligence business, where the sacrosanct principle is protecting your sources. It seems to me that, as a result of this massive breach of security, we have considerable repair work to do in terms of reassuring people and rebuilding trust, because they clearly—people are going to feel at risk."

http://www.dailytech.com/Taliban+Thankful+That+Wikileaks+Exposed+US+Allies+Vows+to+Punish+Them/article19221.htm

Then killed and intimidated tribal elders---

It's been a nightmarish last few months for U.S. Military officials. First they discovered that a young soldier serving in Iraq had acted as a spy passing documents to the site Wikileaks. Then they endured Wikileaks release of 90,000 U.S. Military documents -- many of them classified -- detailing their operations in Afghanistan.

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.

At the same time, 70 other tribal elders received death threats warning them that the Taliban had obtained reason to believe they were collaborating with the U.S. One such threat is signed by Abdul Rauf Khadim, a senior Taliban official who was imprisoned in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. When the Cuban prison was partially shut down by President Obama Khadim was transferred to Afghan custody in Kabul, where he subsequently escaped.
http://www.dailytech.com/Taliban+Murders+Afghan+Elder+Thanks+Wikileaks+for+Revealing+Spies/article19250.htm

Julian Assange didn't care--he thought anyone who fought against the Taliban deserved death--

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

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

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

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

[Cha]

84. As I've said before but haven't said lately..

Fuck Bradley Manning and his leaker Julian. Although, Bradley has already fucked himself up good. And, Julian's no stranger to self sabotage.

Thanks for the info, msanthrope

[DevonRex]

50. Did you think he'd immediately say "OMG page 42 has our whole plan!"??

Of course not. They shrug. Downplay it. Move on and prosecute the hell out of the asshole.

[sabrina 1]

79. You're right, no one expects this to be a fair trial, it is merely for show, to scare anyone

else from doing the right thing. He has already been convicted, the means nothing. The President declared him guilty. IF this was a country that abided by the rule of law we would be watching the trials of the war criminals and Manning would be a witness for the prosecution.

And IF this country cared about justice, this 'trial' would have been over as soon as the president declared him 'guilty'. Correction, this trial would not be happening, he would be receiving a medal of honor.

Instead medals have gone to those guilty of war crimes. Few people in the world, view this as anything but a tragedy with no hope of justice.

[Egalitarian Thug]

35. Um, yes. But of course that would involve reading and understanding the premise under which we

tried and executed or imprisoned Nazis. Now that we are the bad guys we choose to ignore the principles we established in the first place.

[msanthrope]

36. Too bad Manning chose to volunteer for the 'bad guys' and go to war. He'll have to

face the consequences of that.

[redgreenandblue]

93. So was the Iraq war justified or not?

If no then it is aggression. Pretty simple. If you think it was then maybe you think there were WMDs there and Saddam was about to use them and was in on 9/11 or something?

[DevonRex]

7. Manning got classified info to Bin Laden, the terrorist.

The man responsible for 9/11. That's like HELPING Hitler, not trying to assassinate him as Stauffenberg tried to do.

I don't give a flying fuck or a rat's ass what Manning's excuse is. The FACT is that intelligence information that he stole went to the terrorists. Period. Fuck him and anybody else who does that.

You have a gripe you come home and do what John Kerry did when he got back from Vietnam. What so many soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines did afterwards. You make your case publicly. You talk. You write. You organize. You do not help terrorists. As soon as you let classified information go you have no control over who sees it. Assume it goes to the enemy. Manning KNEW that. That is drilled into the heads of MI personnel over and over and over and over again. He doesn't have a leg to stand on.

He should have started drooling in a corner and pretending he's crazy. He'd have more hope of getting off on being batshit crazy than he will trying to somehow justify helping terrorists.

[G_j]

9. He didn't give the information to Bin Laden

he gave it to WikiLeaks where is was available to anyone.

[DevonRex]

43. LOL! Spoken like someone who was never in military intelligence.

Releasing TSSI documents to Wikileaks is exactly the same thing as handing the documents straight to Bin Laden, in whose possession some were, in fact, found.

The following paragraph has been classified:

If you disagree with this premise then why don't you tell us your real name, phone number, home address, place of employment, work number and bank account numbers? You could throw in a few credit card numbers while you're at it. This is just the internet. Nobody who would do anything bad with the information will see it.
classification ends here.

Please note, I do NOT want you to provide the above information. SOMEONE BAD WILL SEE IT BECAUSE THIS IS THE INTERNET. I repeat, do NOT give out the above information. SOMEONE BAD WILL ROB YOU BLIND BECAUSE THIS IS THE INTERNET.

[JDPriestly]

80. It is probably true that some of the information that was released

should have been classified and kept secret.

But that was only a tiny part of the information released.

What that proves is that far too much information is being classified.

We used to publish our names, addresses and telephone numbers in the telephone directory. That was the rule. Very few people had "unlisted numbers," and they were considered peculiar.

Today the degree of criminal conduct is hard to measure. But even harder to measure is the degree of paranoia and fear much of which is unnecessary.

If we paid our bills with checks and cash and banks did not indiscriminately hand out credit cards, if we had police walking the beat instead of hiding away in helicopters and peeking out at us, we might all be better off. And we would need far less personal security.

If we did not interfere in the business of other countries quite so much, we probably would not have had the War in Iraq or Bradley Manning. Why in the world did we fight that war anyway? Everyone has a different answer. Personally I think it was just a way for Cheney to replenish the coffers of Halliburton and for other military contractors to make a lot of money. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. True, Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, but as we learned form Wikileaks, so was the leader of Tunesia. And there was Mubarak in Egypt -- a cruel dictator.

If people died due to Manning's release of truthful documents some of which should have remained classified, let's remember that in all fairness, by that measure, it is Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and most members of Congress who should be in the docket and on trial with him. They are responsible for the deaths of far more innocent people, far more good people than is Bradley Manning.

I'm sorry to have to say this, but I really think that if you calm down and look at the facts, you will, with great sadness agree with me. And I think that my opinion is correct but a terribly sad fact.

[AnalystInParadise]

86. Thank you Devon Rex

From one intelligence professional to another, I salute you. People that never served in MI have no fucking clue the magnitude of the crimes that Manning committed with his actions.

[MADem]

11. Artfully articulated. +1000! nt

[redgreenandblue]

12. So basically you are denying that "aggressive warfare" is the ultimate crime against humanity.

As such you are going against the foundations of international law.

[stevenleser]

71. No, that is your straw man. nt

[JDPriestly]

81. Why do you think we fought the Iraq War?

There were no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 or the terrorists as it turned out.

Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. He killed many of his countrymen. But we support a lot of bad guys around the world.

Why do you think we singled Iraq out? The war cost many lives. Thousands of American lives and many more thousand Iraqi lives.

If we fought the war to save Iraqis from Hussein, we probably killed far more of them than Hussein did.

So why did we fight that war.

Earlier today, I contrasted the extreme loyalty of American soldiers during WWII. The ENIGMA was a huge secret known to many British and American soldiers. Yet those who knew that we knew the codes of the Germans never talked about it, not even to their family members.

Suddenly we have Manning. He seems to be basically a young, idealistic man with a conscience, precisely the kind of young person who was so loyal and who sacrificed so much during WWII.

So, why did we fight in Iraq in the first place, and why did he release and publish the documents that were entrusted to him? Is it perhaps because the cause noble for which he was asked to fight was not noble and worthy enough to win his loyalty and the loyalty of some of our other more idealistic soldiers?

I know that you are a very thoughtful DUer and I am interested in your response. Perhaps you can change my mind on this.

Thank you in advance for your answer to my questions. I find the situation quite confusing and disturbing because I do love my country and am so saddened by the waste of human life and American taxpayers' money and the moral wrongs of the Iraq War. Bush was, in my opinion, such a curse on America. Worst president ever. Bradley Manning is the inevitable result, I suspect.

[stevenleser]

98. I am on record on the air and in print calling it an unprovoked war of aggression. nt

[JDPriestly]

100. Thank you. Then you will agree with me most likely that

if Manning is a criminal and to be sentenced, he is not the only one. His crime is minor compared to those of some very prominent people. In that sense it is an injustice to sentence him, but I have read (if it is true) that he is willing to confess to certain actions that are likely to be deemed criminal. In fact, I thought he had already confessed. I understand the sentence will be or is 20 years. That is a long time. The Espionage Act is pretty old, from a different time. It probably needs to be updated, and our rules and regulations regarding the handling of classified information and the qualifications for determining what is to be classified and what is not to be classified probably need to be revised. Too much material is withheld from public view. That encourages irresponsible and dishonest conduct in government in my view.

I wonder how many Americans believe a) that Saddam Hussein plotted the 9/11 terror acts and b) that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. It would be interesting to see how many Americans understand that war was one of aggression. It would be interesting to see how many Americans understand how useless and cruel that war really was -- what a huge mistake it was.

It is really important that Americans understand that before 2016. Because if they don't we are likely to get another administration in the White House of bloodthirsty Republican war-profiteers.

[redgreenandblue]

90. What, in your opinion, is the legal response to "aggressive warfare waged by a state actor"?

[AnalystInParadise]

91. Depends on the context

That's probably why no one in the General Assembly of the UN has ever pressed to have the U.S. charged for starting an illegal war. We couldn't veto such an action, and YET no one has even bothered, not Iran, not North Korea, not Chavez's Venezuela before he died.......So I think the context matters, many nations are bothered by our actions in invading Iraq, but they know that it doesn't fit the bill for an illegal war.

[redgreenandblue]

94. Not sure but I think mainly two reasons:

1. It would be hard to gain large enough coalition to press it because there are too many countries in on it and/or backing the US. So it would probably lack the votes, which doesn't mean the criteria aren't objectively fulfilled.

2. Even if it passed, it would be irrelevant. The USA military outmatches all other militaries combined in size. Also, the only possible outcome could be a nuclear war between the USA, Russia and China, and that is off the table.

So, it cannot be done from a practical standpoint. The principled standpoint is entirely another one.

[AnalystInParadise]

96. But if

Chavez was the man of principle that so many here claim he was, why didn't he? In this case I think Occam's Razor is in play....the simplest explanation is the closest to truth.

[graham4anything]

26. +1

[arely staircase]

52. exactly

nt

[MADem]

10. No, he isn't. That's just a lousy comparison. nt

[RobertEarl]

19. It is a very good comparison. You are wrong. Again.

[MADem]

20. Are you going to follow me round the board now?

We have a difference of opinion. It will not be resolved.

Have one of those nice days, and please, no more of your rude PMs, TIA.

[RobertEarl]

22. No.

Why go off topic? The war was an illegal war and any means to bring the truth to Americans should be applauded.

Unless one likes to be lied to, kept in the dark and fed bullshit. Those types would go after Manning and look the other way as Bush walks. Hmmm, who does that? Need I PM you?

[MADem]

23. I do not agree with your evaluation.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this topic. Your insinuations and insults don't move me.

I've asked you three times to NOT PM me, so why would you think I want you to now?

Reference, for anyone interested in this unimportant exchange: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2943414

[RobertEarl]

24. You think Iraq invasion was legal?

I know it was illegal. You disagree?

[leftynyc]

29. You do realize your opinion

means NOTHING in terms of Manning, don't you? He may very well think he's done something noble (as you obviously do) - hope he's prepared to be in prison a very long time for his nobility.

[MADem]

38. Precisely. nt

[SlimJimmy]

53. What MADem said ... (nt)

[zappaman]

60. +1!

Heh.
I don't think Manning will Be Free...

[Recursion]

31. Under what instrument was it unlawful?

Seriously, I hear that a lot, and I've never quite grasped it. What instrument made the invasion unlawful?

[redgreenandblue]

33. The UN charta and a few other documents.

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

[Recursion]

34. Declaring a war a War of Aggression requires a UN finding of fact, which is possible through the GA

Why has nobody attempted that? We can't veto it.

[redgreenandblue]

39. That is indeed a good question.

The facts are what they are. A sovereign nation was invaded without provocation.

[Recursion]

40. Oh I don't know about that. Iraq had an invasion suspended since 1990

And for that matter, the sanctions in the 90s killed more people than the war did, ultimately.

[JDPriestly]

83. But, we did not send our troops in to kill and to die.

And for what?

Why did we go into Iraq?

There were no weapons of mass destruction. Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/22 terrorists. Our intelligence was easily show to be wrong.

And now the Iranians have more influence in Iraq than they did before our invasion. What's more, it is may understanding that the Chinese are buying a lot of the oil on terms with which our oil companies cannot afford to compete.

Why in the world did we start that war and what did we achieve with it?

Seems to me that members of the Bush administration should be sharing the defendant's table with Manning. They betrayed our country with their careless, harmful decisions about the War in Iraq.

[MADem]

37. You have a nice day, now. nt

[stevenleser]

72. Most of us knew that long before Manning and Manning did not alter my opinion of that. nt

[JDPriestly]

82. In your view, why did we go into Iraq?

Why did we invade that country?

Why did thousands of Americans and many thousands of Iraqis die?

For what "noble cause"?

I think that a lot of soldiers are asking that question. Manning was certainly one of them. He was an idealistic young man. I think the issue now is whether and if so how much more than 20 years he should serve. Personally, I think 20 years is probably long enough and really too long.

In my view, Bush and Cheney and many others should be answering for war crimes.

But maybe you can explain to me why the War in Iraq was not a war crime. Like many others, I apply the standards set in the Nuremburg trials and I see a huge war crime. Am I wrong?

[MADem]

87. Manning indiscriminately dumped data that endangered people's lives.

He didn't exercise ANY due care and concern to not endanger the lives of people named in those cables.

Let me give you an explanation you might be able to process.

Two wrongs don't make a right. They never have.

And Bush and Cheney will not be "answering for war crimes." I realize many would like to see this, but you will see an elephant fly before you see that happen. And you know that. Asking angry, rhetorical questions don't advance the discussion.

Bush hasn't entered a guilty plea to anything, even if we think he should. He regards his policies as justified, and he did a great job getting "cover" from Congress so the blame doesn't rest solely on his shoulders--surely you remember that?

Manning has entered guilty pleas to 10 of 22 charges. He's toast. You might not like that, but that's the way it is.

No shooting the messenger now.

[JDPriestly]

99. Justice is justice.

Manning, like others who did what he has done -- expose wrongs, will be viewed as a hero by history if he is sentenced.

Bush and Cheney will not.

Sometimes we have to await the judgment of history.

Manning did expose secrets. If it can be shown that he caused danger to people's lives, he will be sentenced beyond the 20 years of time to which he has agreed to plead. I haven't really seen that evidence yet.

The government still stamps too much stuff classified and then hands that same stuff out to too many people. And I still say that if Manning is guilty then so are a lot of his superiors including Cheney and Bush. I don't see how, since you admit you cannot justify the war in the first place, you can disagree with me.

Sad world we are living in. Another case of injustice.

Manning did disseminate classified information. The news media say that he has offered to admit that. He disputes whether he is guilty of espionage. I have read that a number of times. I suspect that you have too.

I am saying that if he is guilty so are a number of others.

[Recursion]

13. What did Manning release that illuminated the decision-making about the beginning of Iraq?

People seem to have these wildly fantastic ideas about what he actually released.

[redgreenandblue]

15. Fact is, what he did was motivated by what he saw in Iraq.

It matters little what was in the documents he obtained. He was in Iraq and had access to secret documents of which it was reasonable to believe that releasing them would impair the aggressive warfare that was being waged. So he dumped them. It was the correct course of action.

The dump would not have happened had it not been for the Iraq war. Blaming him for leaking the documents thus amounts to denying that the USA bears the full responsibility for the war and all the consequences of it.

[Recursion]

16. Lucky for him, you're not his defense lawyer

That's a horrible argument.

[redgreenandblue]

17. Only from a certain perspective.

I take the view that the invasion of Iraq was every bit as serious a crime as Hitler's invasion of Poland. What should have followed, by the same standards that were applied after WWII, is trials for the political leadership before an international court. Releasing classified information can be seen as one step in that direction.

That an American court will see it differently is obvious. When it comes to the Iraq war, I take the view that the USA has forfeited every right to national self-interest.

[Recursion]

21. Nope. Couldn't help with that

Nothing he released bears on the decision to go to war.

[Pelican]

27. It's only a horrible argument from a legal perspective...

Which is the only one that counts...

Your personal wishes and "the way the world ought to be" have no influence... at all...

[redgreenandblue]

28. From the legal perspective....

... Stauffenberg was guilty of attempted murder and his execution was legal. That is, from the legal perspective within the framework of the national laws of Germany at the time. This framework became void as soon as Germany became an aggressor state. International law trumps national laws. This was one of the things established during the Nuremberg trials.

[Recursion]

41. He also killed 4 people who were not Hitler, including two waiters

Side effects. They happen. That might be something to think about on this.

[geek tragedy]

45. So, from your perspective, it's legal to assassinate an American

President if you view US foreign policy as waging illegal aggression?

[redgreenandblue]

46. Chapter 7 of the UN charter discusses self-defense and pre-emptive self-defense.

In particular article 51. There are clearly defined criteria. It has nothing to do with my perspective.

And no, by American law it obviously would not be legal.

[geek tragedy]

49. So, if Manning had decided to assassinate Bush or Obama,

that would be considered a legal act under the UN charter, and should trump US law?

[redgreenandblue]

58. "The UN charter doesn't apply to the USA, because the USA is special and above the law."

That is obviously what you are thinking. It would be easier if you just came out and said it.

As for your questions: Red herring.

[RobertEarl]

18. It could be that Manning is a super hero

Last edited Tue Jun 4, 2013, 12:21 PM - Edit history (2)

Could be that his actions were one reason Bush ( on edit: not possible, this is wrong, Bush was already gone) had to end the Iraqi war. Saving many soldiers.

The people who should be on trial are Bush and Cheney.

Good thread, redgreenandblue, bravo!

ETA: and thanks muriel for pointing out my error (below in next post). I have not been glued to this event like the HANG Bradley crowd. I am a Free Bradley casual onlooker who thinks what Bradley did save lives and that Bush et al are the real criminals.

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. His actions in November 2009 caused Bush to end the Iraq war?

I think not.

In his opening arguments Army prosecutor Captain Joe Morrow presented detailed computer forensic evidence of Manning’s computer activity that indicated he began passing along classified information to Wikileaks within two weeks of his deployment to Baghdad in November, 2009.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/bradley-manning-court-martial-starts-today/

Have you actually been following this story? Or are you just commenting without a basic idea of what is said to have happened?

[SlimJimmy]

57. And I am one of the people that live in the real world. A world where the wanton release

of classified documents contaiing both foreign and military sources will get you put in jail.

[RobertEarl]

61. Like Libby and Cheney are in jail?

Remember when they exposed the CIA agent who was working on WMD? Huh? Do you fucking remember that real world shit? Seems you haven't a clue. That is what this whole thread is about.

[SlimJimmy]

63. You seem to get riled pretty easily. Swearing at me in your first post. But, that's okay,

I stand by what I said. The fact that you don't seem to comprehend that what he did was illegal, is not my problem.

And for the record, this discussion is not about the outing of Valerie Plame, or the cost of coffee in Peru, it's about Manning. Please try to stay focused.

[RobertEarl]

65. Yeah, it pisses me off when...

The big criminals walk while a low man on the pole goes to jail. Sorry about that. You just poked your nose in it and it got you hurt. Poor slim. Tough shit.

[SlimJimmy]

68. It's clear that you are woefully ignorant of the facts in this case. Not knowing the difference

between a whistle blower and a criminal was a dead giveaway. If only you'd actually read the posts in this thread, you'd be so much the wiser. Instead you choose to act like third grader with the "Poor Slim. Tough shit" comment. Really, is that the best argument you have? [yawn]

[SlimJimmy]

54. So the fact that he released information on both foreign and military sources is okay with you?

And when I say *sources*, I mean boith open and clandestine personnel.

[AnalystInParadise]

85. What exactly did Bradley Manning see

from the comfy, cushy confines of the FOB that he never left? The dump happened because a young man decided he was the supreme authority for declassifying data, he was wrong, and now he will rot in jail and I couldn't be happier. As a retired Intel Analyst myself (retired 2 years ago)who saw the same or more than Manning and never violated my oath, I am embarrassed that he and I wear the same Army Corps crest on our dress uniforms.

The real criminal here in Manning, someone who actually broke the law.

[cali]

25. von Stauffenberg and no

[redgreenandblue]

103. Why not? Here's the thing:

I realize that historical analogies are always problematic, and am generally not the biggest fan of them. They almost always have a "apple to oranges" feel to them. And yet, people use them a lot: Various rebels have been compared to the US founding fathers, Saddam Hussein to Hitler, Milosevic to Hitler and so on. Obama even used a nazi comparison (Taliban=nazis) at this Nobel Prize speech to justify the war in Afghanistan.

As far as such grand analogies go, I think this one is not extremely terrible. It all depends on whether you believe in universal standards that apply to everyone equally.

Here is how von Stauffenberg and Manning are similar: Both were members of armed forces engaged in aggression, who due to their position had access to "inner circles" of said armed forces. Both used their position in an attempt to throw a wrench into the rolling war machine. Both risked their own safety in doing so. In the case of von Stauffenberg, there was actual collateral damage. In Manning's case, such damage is only alleged.

Whether you think their actions can be compared depends all depends on how you evaluate the forces they opposed. I hold the opinion that from the standpoint of believing in universal standards, there is no other way than to consider all aggressive wars as equally immoral, no matter who wages them or what other crimes the parties waging them commit or don't commit.

In this thread, rebuttals to what I wrote came essentially in three forms:

1. The Iraq war was not aggression.

2. Aggression is not a crime.

3. Aggression is not a crime when the USA does it.

Those main arguments are all nonsense. Those aside, there were a few arguments based on technicalities, such as "well, he signed up after the war was already in progress" which are nonsense, because if a universal right to resist aggression exists then it exists at all times.

The crux lies in the fact that people are refusing to accept that the Iraq war was every bit as serious a crime against peace and crime against humanity as the invasion of Poland or France.

[geek tragedy]

44. Sorry, you are offering a "far left fantasy" not a legal analysis.

This is simply gibberish unfounded in any body of law but your own imagination:

As the USA was the aggressor-state in Iraq, each and every action against its armed forces or the political leadership, in principle, were covered by international law as being legal and morally legitimate.

[redgreenandblue]

47. UN charter, chapter 7, article 51. nt

[geek tragedy]

48. Says nothing about legality of all actions taken towards a supposedly aggressor state, nt

[redgreenandblue]

89. This article was used to justify military action against North Vietnam.

It is commonly understood to codify the right of states and/or individuals to resist against aggression.

[geek tragedy]

97. That doesn't extend to people who aren't being invaded.

Manning was not acting to resist an invading army.

[kenny blankenship]

51. You're forgetting something:

laws never apply to the government of the United States of America. That goes double for international law or treaties (ask an Indian).

Good luck with the stormtroopers.

[DevonRex]

62. ROFLMFAO!!! Text of 7:51. Maybe you shouldn't call DUers stormtroopers. LOL!!!

You know, since it has nothing to do with a soldier disclosing TSSI information that wound up in Bin Laden's hands in Pakistan.

Just try to apply that to anything he's been talking about in this thread.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.


« Previous | Next »

[DevonRex]

64. Good lord. WTF. The text:

This says nothing like what you've been touting. LOL!

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

[arely staircase]

55. in essence, no

nt

[Kolesar]

56. Five sentences

That's it--only five sentences? You said pretty much nothing.

[railsback]

59. No 'war' was declared on Iraq

Don't see how this is relevant.

[Astrad]

66. Actually war wasn't declared on Iraq

It was a congressional authorization to use force. Different even if the result is the same.

[CharlesInCharge]

75. Declarations of War are so 20th Century - nt

[Chan790]

67. That's a grave insult to Colonel Claus Philipp Maria Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg.

In terms of comparisons, George John Dasch is a far more appropriate one. A whiny traitorous halfwit who ratted out his own men for purely selfish reasons and betrayed his nation expecting to be lauded as a hero for it. Twice, once by both sides, in some interpretations.

Dasch was shocked that he was arrested and imprisoned by the US after handing over the identities and locations of German spies and saboteurs; information he had because he'd been their handler and organizer on US soil. After the war, when he was deported to Germany, he was equally shocked the Germans considered him to be human trash and a coward for directly being the cause of the death of soldiers under his command.

[SlimJimmy]

69. Excellent comparison. I had to look him up, but the story is facsinating. Thanks for the info.

[redgreenandblue]

88. What I learned from researching your post is that enemy spies have no right to POW status.

And that they also have no proper channels through which they can surrender during war time. Whether this is just would be a topic for another thread, but apparently this is how things are. Spies are not soldiers, once they take off the uniform. Kind of weird if one thinks about it.

What I have also learned is that you think betraying Nazi Germany is morally reprehensible.

As someone pointed out in this thread, innocent people also died due to the acts of Stauffenberg. So I am not sure why you evaluate his acts as being superiour to those of Dasch.

Whether the comparison to Manning holds I cannot say. Yes, both betrayed a county that was fighting an aggressive war and was clearly in the wrong in doing so. Their motivations were likely different. Manning had nothing to gain from his actions. Dasch was hoping to save his own skin.

[The Second Stone]

70. Stauffenberg was a Nazi

and plotted to kill Hitler because he and others wanted to grab power. They thought Hitler was incompetent. His bunch would have been much lesser evils, but let's not glorify them. Deitrich Boehnoffer was a hero.

[CharlesInCharge]

73. More like Hans (and Sophie) Scholl of the White Rose

Last edited Wed Jun 5, 2013, 03:04 AM - Edit history (3)

movement. Hans Scholl actually served in the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front prior to returning to Munich. Interestingly, the Scholls reached out to the German military plotters but were decisively rebuffed. Not sure whether they actually tried to contact Stauffenberg himself.

Your post got me to get off my lurking duff and start posting. Great post and discussion. My sincerest compliments.

[hrmjustin]

102. Welcome to DU my friend!

[MrScorpio]

74. No. I'm sorry, but this doesn't work at all

One thing is not like the other.

[Riftaxe]

77. You are Delusional

Might i suggest you actually find a source more worthy then wiki.

Manning probably wishes he had the balls to be a Stauffenberg.

[CharlesInCharge]

101. You are the one who is delusional. Stauffenberg

expected to survive the plot and hoped to be part of a post-Hitlerian regime that negotiated a separate peace with the West so the Germans could focus their full attentions on the USSR.

That's balls, allright.

Manning is as courageous in his own way as was Hans Scholl of the White Rose Movement.