Like it or Not, Bradley Manning is a Traitor

[michigandem58]

...Don’t kid yourself, Bradley Manning isn’t a hero. He obviously suffers from some serious emotional issues. He seems to struggle with his gender, his sexuality, his parents divorce and from most accounts of those who knew him, he never seemed to fit in with anyone.

And while I sympathize with his struggles, that doesn’t excuse his actions. I think that’s something some of his supporters seem to confuse. They read the story about a bullied gay man, who struggled with acceptance in society (and the military) and empathize with his life story. And while I’m an avid supporter of LGBT rights, that doesn’t impact my views on why I oppose his actions...

Seeing the pieces of information he exposed, it’s easy to hold him up as a hero because some of it was horrific, and controversial, behavior by our government. But those that do so ignore the dangers of someone in our military, with access to classified information, during a time of war, deployed to war, leaking information that could compromise the lives of our brave men and women serving overseas.

I’m sorry, I just don’t have sympathy for someone who does that.

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/like-it-or-not-bradley-manning-is-a-traitor-not-a-hero/

[Arctic Dave]

1. The pilot who killed all those people is a piece of shit.

Manning is a hero for outing that.

[jmowreader]

157. And then Private Manning negated that heroic act by doing the mass file dumps

Would you care to explain how the release of a quarter-million files containing the names of people working with the US against dictatorial regimes makes Manning any different from Dick Cheney?

[Arctic Dave]

168. Working against dictatorial regimes?

You mean they are doing what Manning did.

Are they heroes?

How many of those countries invaded, occupied, tortured, bombed, raped and imprisoned other countries? Other then the US.

[pnwmom]

227. Manning doesn't live in a dictatorial regime. n/t

[Arctic Dave]

228. Authoritarian, yes.

Now answer the rest of what I said.

[pnwmom]

229. It's not possible for any of us to answer.

Last edited Fri Aug 23, 2013, 02:52 AM - Edit history (4)

None of us have read the over 250,000 cables that Manning indiscriminately, recklessly dumped before names could be redacted.

Manning didn't do that as part of thoughtful whistle-blowing -- which I give credit for, with regard to the helicopter videos. Manning dumped the 250,000 cables as a way of lashing out -- and probably also trying to get some approval from Assange, with whom Manning conversed online for a year before handing over the cables. I think Assange encouraged the soldier to grab everything available and let Assange decide what to do with it. Assange played Manning; he took advantage of a miserable, unstable young person. But it's Manning who will have to bear the consequences. A sad lesson to have to learn. It's lucky Manning might get out in as few as 8 years. It could have been much worse.

[Arctic Dave]

269. When you play with fire, you can get burned.

Why do love spies or whistle blowers from other countries but we hate when the tables are turned.


Choose the life, choose the consequences.

[pnwmom]

281. Why? Because we have a long history of conflict with Russia, that's why.

That's why they are gloating about Snowden's defection. They can now pretend their record of civil rights is better than ours.

[Arctic Dave]

282. Because everyone does it.

To claim we are better then the next guy is a load of baloney.

We took it in the shorts this time, get over it.

[jmowreader]

287. No, but some of the people the State Department works with do

Manning's Cablegate dump contains files dating back to 1966 and produced by every US Embassy in the world. Any self-respecting dictatorship shoots people who are revealed to have worked with the United States. You KNOW all the dictatorships in the world, upon finding out WikiLeaks had released all these cables, started searching Assange's database for names of its suspected traitors. Those countries also believe in corruption of blood - that a treason you committed taints your entire family. And they have very long memories.

So consider: You live in a dictatorship. Forty years ago your mother was an informant for the United States. They used her real name in their reporting. Your mom died ten years ago without telling anyone in her family about her past as a spy. Then Manning releases every State Department cable back to the Vietnam War...and at two in the morning, the Ministry for Security kicks in your door and the doors of all your siblings, grabs everyone in the house, takes you to the nearest Army post, and executes all of you for treason after torturing you. That shit only makes the papers if anyone reports it, and no one's going to report it because it'll be considered collaboration and the Ministry for Security will be at their door tomorrow morning.

This is not fun and games. What Manning did has severe consequences for people who don't even know they're involved.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

264. Since you asked, there's a major difference between Manning and Dick Cheney.

As posted elsewhere on DU, Manning's information revealed immoral and illegal acts.

See Too Often Forgotten: An Amazingly Long List of What We Know Thanks to Private Manninghttp://www.democraticunderground.com/10023518698

"First, just a very partial list from "Cablegate" (keep in mind, this does not include many other bombshells that caused a stir in smaller nations abroad):

-Yemeni president lied to his own people, claiming his military carried out air strikes on militants actually done by U.S. All part of giving U.S. full rein in country against terrorists.

-Details on Vatican hiding big sex abuse cases in Ireland.

-U.S. tried to get Spain to curb its probes of Gitmo torture and rendition.

-Egyptian torturers trained by FBI—although allegedly to teach the human rights issues.

-State Dept memo: U.S.-backed 2009 coup in Honduras was 'illegal and unconstitutional.'”

-Cables on Tunisia appear to help spark revolt in that country. The country's ruling elite described as “The Family,” with Mafia-like skimming throughout the economy. The country's First Lady may have made massive profits off a private school.

-U.S. knew all about massive corruption in Tunisia back in 2006 but went on supporting the government anyway, making it the pillar of its North Africa policy.

-Cables showed the UK promised in 2009 to protect U.S interests in the official Chilcot inquiry on the start of the Iraq war.

-U.S. pressured the European Union to accept GM — genetic modification, that is.

-Washington was misled by our own diplomats on Russia-Georgia showdown.

-Extremely important historical document finally released in full: Ambassador April Glaspie's cable from Iraq in 1990 on meeting with Saddam Hussein before Kuwait invasion.

-The UK sidestepped a ban on housing cluster bombs. Officials concealed from Parliament how the U.S. is allowed to bring weapons on to British soil in defiance of treaty.

-New York Times: “From hundreds of diplomatic cables, Afghanistan emerges as a looking-glass land where bribery, extortion and embezzlement are the norm and the honest man is a distinct outlier.”

-Afghan vice president left country with $52 million “in cash.”

-Shocking levels of U.S. spying at the United Nations (beyond what was commonly assumed) and intense use of diplomats abroad in intelligence-gathering roles.

-Potential environmental disaster kept secret by the U.S. when a large consignment of highly enriched uranium in Libya came close to cracking open and leaking radioactive material into the atmosphere.

-U.S. used threats, spying, and more to try to get its way at last year's crucial climate conference in Copenhagen.

-Hundreds of cables detail U.S. use of diplomats as “sales” agents, more than previously thought, centering on jet rivalry of Boeing vs. Airbus. Hints of corruption and bribes.

-Millions in U.S. military aid for fighting Pakistani insurgents went to other gov't uses (or stolen) instead.

-Israel wanted to bring Gaza to the ”brink of collapse.”

-The U.S. secret services used Turkey as a base to transport terrorism suspects as part of its extraordinary rendition program.

-As protests spread in Egypt, cables revealed that strong man Suleiman was at center of government's torture programs, causing severe backlash for Mubarak after he named Suleiman vice president during the revolt. Other cables revealed or confirmed widespread Mubarak regime corruption, police abuses and torture, and claims of massive Mubarak famiiy fortune, significantly influencing media coverage and U.S. response.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/175879/too-often-forgotten-amazingly-long-list-what-we-know-thanks-private-manning#

[hfojvt]

171. what pilot are you talking about?

I am not remembering a pilot.

[myrna minx]

189. Chelsea Manning revealed the video tape slaughter of civilians, including two Reuters journalists

by a Apache Helicopter in 2007. For some reason this war crime was "classified" and now the whistle blower of this atrocity is now sentenced to 35 years in prison, yet the perpetrators of the war crime and those who lied us into war live in a state of comfort and luxury. Those that commit war crimes live in luxury. Those that reveal the war crimes receive the wrath of the military and Obama administrations and receive a sentence of 35 years in prison. Yes We Can.

[hfojvt]

217. I remembered that one

but did not think of the shooter as a "pilot". I suppose he could be, but I was thinking there would be a gunner. But I guess in my vast knowledge of helicopters that I got from watching "Blue Thunder" that the pilot could be the one doing the shooting.

But if that is all that was revealed. I can understand very well why it was classified, and agree that it should have been. I consider it neither a slaughter nor a war crime, but a tragic accident. And for all we know they were KIA, or are otherwise not living in luxury.

[ljm2002]

230. The war crimes...

...were when they (a) shot and killed wounded people on the ground, who were not a threat; and (b) shot and killed the good samaritan who tried to help the wounded. Both are war crimes under the Geneva Convention. A "quaint" document, to be sure; but we are signatories and agreed to be bound by those rules of warfare.

One may be able to rationalize the other actions taken (thinking the camerman's telephoto lens was an RPG; not knowing there were children in the good samaritan's vehicle). But I don't think the word "accident" applies to any of it.

There is no reason for the video to be classified, and there was no reason to deny the video's existence when Reuters tried to find out what had happened to their journalists who were killed in this incident.

Also, there were numerous instances of journalists being killed by the US or its allied forces in Iraq. My own opinion is that our military wanted all the journalists under their control, i.e. "embedded", and wanted to send a message to those who did not care to be embedded. The evidence for that is purely circumstantial but that is what I think.

[hfojvt]

234. not having actually read the Geneva Conventions

I guess right now I will have to take your word for it.

But they seem like silly "crimes" to me. Killing a wounded enemy is a crime? Why would I want to allow an enemy to recover and return to harm me?

Killing those who would aid a wounded enemy is a crime? Again, why would I want my enemy, or enemies to recover? Why isn't it very likely that those rushing to aid a wounded enemy are not also enemies?

When you think you are shooting at armed enemies, and it turns out you were not, then that is a deadly mistake, rather than a deliberate result. But they also said a loaded RPG was found at the scene. Untrue? Planted?

That incident happened on 12 July 2007.

The reason for keeping it classified is to not give propaganda to the enemy. If you think this incident was so horrible, you might consider that our side was trying to stop things like this

"April 18 – Four bombings occur in Baghdad, killing at least 198 in the April 18, 2007 Baghdad bombings"

If the accidental killing of a dozen civilians is a HUGE war crime, then what the fuck is the DELIBERATE killing of over 198 civilians?

and this

"May 6 – Roadside bombs killed eight American soldiers in separate attacks in Diyala province and Baghdad as sectarian tension rises. In all, at least 95 Iraqis were killed or found dead nationwide."

November 7 – 2007 becomes the most deadly year for American troops in Iraq.

"April 14 – Insurgents detonated a car bomb inside at a bus station in Karbala, killing at least 37 and wounding more than 150."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_in_Iraq#June

Well, at least the insurgents were not killing civilians like the American war criminals. Since we don't apparently have any video of them setting their bombs, let's put forward a video to make the Americans look like the bad guys.

We never should have invaded. I took part in a protest trying to stop it, wrote my congresspeople to no avail, but it is not like we made some people set bombs to kill their fellow Iraqis. And the death of 18 is not as big a war crime as the death of 198. I say the people who set those bombs need to be prosecuted for war crimes.

Oh, and the violence continues even after we have gone "During the first two weeks of July 2013, a series of coordinated bombings and shootings struck across several cities in Iraq, killing at least 389 people and injuring more than 800 others." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_2013_Iraq_attacks

[Enthusiast]

243. OMG!

"But they seem like silly "crimes" to me."

Even battlefield Nazis during WWII in most instances honored the Geneva Convention. Our injured airmen that parachuted to the ground had their broken legs and arms treated by the Nazis. The exceptions have been noted and many were prosecuted at Nuremberg. Likewise the allies treated wounded battlefield Nazi soldiers. Maybe you should revisit the history to get an understanding of just how OFF you are.

[deutsey]

250. Yes...and the invasion itself was illegal

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

[Democracyinkind]

262. OMG indeed.

"I don't know what the term "war crimes" means but even if I did I'd find them silly"

Sometimes I've got the feeling that many people believe themselves to be liberals without reflecting at all. As if you can be opposed to the Geneva connvention and be a liberal at the same time. I just don't think that's possible. As always, these Manning threads produce a constantly dropped jaw on my side.

[hfojvt]

298. I find it more strange

that those who claim to be liberals get all excited and massively upset at our own country over the unintentional death of 12 but seemingly unconcerned about the intentional death of 198. Except when even that must be blamed on America because we invaded after all.

Personally I think WAR itself is a crime against humanity, and the notion that "we should try to kill each other and blow things up in a civilized way" is a little bit silly. Especially if one side cheats and the other side loses because they followed the rules.

It is a little bit like the recent Trek re-run I saw where they had a santized war done by computers, with no mess and no destruction of infrastructure, no real bombs or weapons, just the computers would decide who had been killed in an attack and those designated would report to be incinerated. Very neat and orderly - a war with rules, and with millions dying every year.

[Democracyinkind]

304. A treaty is a treaty.

The Geneva convention is not the product of some dreamy idiots who had no idea about the unavoidable realities of war. Exactly the opposite. IMO either live up to the convention or be honest about the fact that we no no longer regard it.

[COLGATE4]

270. Yep. I remember how the Nazis 'treated' our servicemen

at Malmedy. I think they brought them cocoa - just before they rounded them up and machinegunned the lot.

[Enthusiast]

278. That was a well known exception.

And well documented as an exception.

For the most part both sides were aware of the Geneva Convention. Remember, unlike WWI, there was no deadly gas on the battlefield during WWII. That was due to the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention isn't some outmoded guide of conduct as Cheney and Rumsfeld suggested.

But then, I'm no filthy Republican, so I don't think like a chickenhawk.

[EX500rider]

300. Except in WWII when you were caught fighting...

....out of a uniform you were shot on the spot.

[Enthusiast]

307. There are always atrocities. You're against the Geneva Convention?

No battlefield rules? Just whatever? Few liberal leaning individuals would take such a position.

[EX500rider]

309. Very for battlefield rules....esp the wearing of uniforms while fighting..

....or armbands to identify sides and avoid civilian causalities.

[hfojvt]

295. Which God would that be?

What I said was "Killing a wounded enemy is a crime? Why would I want to allow an enemy to recover and return to harm me?"

As in "a wounded enemy" not "a wounded and captured enemy". These people were wounded, not captured, and getting into another vehicle, they were seemingly about to avoid capture.

[ljm2002]

263. Oh come on...

...either there are rules, or there are not.

I can see the point of view that it is absurd to have rules in war. War is a nasty, deadly business. Rationality flies out the window and life is cheaper than dirt in war. Revenge is not an abstraction when you see your own friends blown to pieces. The object is to "win" (whatever that means), and "winning" means killing as many of your designated enemies as possible, apparently.

On the other hand, we hear all the time about how the other side (be it Iraquis, or the Syrian government, or...) have broken the rules, showing how evil they are: "He gassed his own people!" (with gas bought from us) being the canonical example when talking about Saddam Hussein and the Iraq war.

We signed up to be bound by rules of war. Either we follow the rules we signed up for, or we do not. If we do not choose to be bound by rules we ourselves have signed up for, then there is no moral high ground, and we cannot turn around and expect others to be bound by any rules.

The commission of an aggressive and illegal invasion was the very first war crime of the Iraq war. You want to talk about lots of people killed with bombs? Then you need look no further than Shock and Awe. Thousands of people, many of them civilians, were killed in that action alone.

If you don't think what those gunners did was so bad; then why do you think the video makes us look like bad guys?

I don't expect to convince you but this is how I see it.

BTW here is Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, that talks about the wounded:

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

[hfojvt]

294. when it comes to war I think there should only be one rule

1. Do not start one.

Once a war is started, then following rules does seem kinda silly, except in the propaganda sense. You want to be able to paint your enemies as savage, brutal barbarians and yourself as the honest and decent defenders of all that is right. The actual truth is bound to be a mixture of the two.

In this video though, the wounded are not able to be captured. The ground forces are still a ways away. If the other vehicle loads up the wounded and drives away, then those enemies have escaped.

The video can be made to make us look like bad guys because it has no context. All it shows is the twelve or so that we killed, including two wounded children. The 198 that our enemies killed, or the 95 that our enemies killed, including probably a number of children is not included for context.

Even among the Americans on this board, there was a huge amount of rage whipped up over this video. Almost nobody dared to mention the people we were supposedly fighting. But here they usually get a free pass anyway, since we were the ones who invaded.

And as for shock and awe. Well the odd thing about that is that it was apparently designed to minimize killing as much as possible. We dropped enough bombs there to kill everybody in the cities that we bombed. That bombing could have been much more destructive and deadly than it was.

Point is that once Saddam fell, a lot of the violence being directed at Iraqis was coming from other Iraqis, and presumbly our objective was to stop that. Something I consider to be a worthy objective.

[oldhippie]

301. +1

The whole idea of "civilized warfare" seems absurd. The rules went away when some people started killing other people.

[PowerToThePeople]

2. Like it or not

Opinions are like @$$#0!3z, everyone has one and yours stinks.

[leftstreet]

3. Manning has asked to be referred to as Chelsea

But you probably know that

[Historic NY]

129. Thats not going to happen in

Military prison population, it would necessitate segregation.

[leftstreet]

131. Military prison isn't the same as civilian

Yes it will happen if fellow prisoners are told it will happen

[JaneyVee]

4. He's neither a hero nor a traitor. He is an actual whistleblower.

[ucrdem]

12. Leaker might be more accurate.

He didn't demonstrate much knowledge of what he was transmitting so it's hard to see how he was blowing the whistle on any particular crime or criminality.

[cascadiance]

38. I think you are confusing motive with knowledge...

His MOTIVE was that of a whistleblower, which in my book makes him one. I challenge you to prove otherwise. Whether he makes mistakes in what information he "leaked", as most humans make at times, doesn't change the FACT that his motive was to expose wrongdoing in our military establishment. That's different than someone who's just profiting from money or other favors to SELL information to the enemy. That person would be a spy and a traitor. To equate Manning with someone like that is in many of our opinions ridiculous.

Somehow there's this notion that a "leaker" can't be a "whistleblower", as if the government suddenly wants to add some additional Webster's Dictionary language for what constitutes "leaking". Daniel Ellsberg also LEAKED information with the Pentagon Papers. He was also a WHISTLEBLOWER!

[ucrdem]

48. Ellsberg knew what he was leaking because he helped write it. Manning didn't. nt

[freshwest]

114. And AFAIK, Ellsberg made no money off his release, neither did Manning. Nor did Ellsberg's helpers,

the NYT and Gravel, who read the text of it into the Congressional Record to protect it from Nixon.

It was necessary because of Nixon's rogue actions, including subverting and firing the government's legal team to suppress it. Anyone who doesn't know the depth of that should read John Dean's books.

The release of that book spurred youth to get into the streets in hundreds of thousands across the USA and ushered in a progressive era to change things. Now, people are just looking for the next new shiny and seem to have faith like religious cultists that if they jsut say so, the seat of power will be their inheritance.

The 1% want us to believe in some kind of magic. Because they know it doesn't work. And then we have those who follow the words of the man who profited more than anyone off Manning and tells them to vote for the party that gave us the Patriot Act, Blackwater, ENRON, Halliburton and KBR.

No, they made money off Manning's hardship and these media voices are not our friends. JMHO.

[Cha]

36. How could he be a "whistleblower" when he wasn't

aware of everything he leaked? Threw them to wikiLEAKS.

[JaneyVee]

53. I see your point, but by definition of whistleblower he actually uncovered

Govt abuse. Whereas Snowden we're still dealing in hypotheticals. Sure the NSA may have occasionally fucked up, but the data points to unintentional fuck ups, whereas what Manning revealed points to intentional wrong doing. Manning can get out in 7yrs for good behavior and time served, Snowden needs to state his case.

[Cha]

73. If only Manning had just whistelblowed through the correct channels..

what he knew to be very wrong.

"7 years" doesn't sound too bad if that's possible for good behavior. And, yes, snowden does need to accept responsibility for his actions.

[JaneyVee]

77. I agree. It's sad because he obviously has psychological problems and needs help,

Not jail.

[cascadiance]

93. The channels are a JOKE! Sibel Edmonds would LAUGH you in the face. She tried that way...

... and has proven to subsequent whistleblowers that "going through channels" DOES NOT WORK when the system is as broken as ours is now! As a person with a law degree, she probably knew how far she could bend the rules and not wind up in prison, but most of what she knows still hasn't been made available to the public or has been covered up both by our government and compliant corporatist owned and compliant "mainstream media". A lot of who she's pointed fingers at haven't been investigated as well.

Heck she had the current head of the FISA Court, Reggie Walton "randomly assigned" TWICE to two of her different court cases where she attempted to go to court to be heard on the stand and tell what she knew. In both cases Walton (who also hovered of the joke of a prosecution of Scooter Libby in the Valerie Plame incident), used "State Secrets Privilege" which is the common methodology if they can't turn away a case for "standing" reasons to facilitate the coverups that have been going on for years.

If Maning had tried to go through channels instead of WikiLeaks, do you think any of us would have known about the crap that he exposed like the Reuter's journalists being carelessly killed by our troops? NO!

And I'll bet there are countless other whistleblowers that tried to "go through channels" that perhaps even Manning heard about earlier that we haven't even heard about because they're situations have been covered up too!

All sending Manning to prison does is send a message to other would-be whistleblowers in the future, like Snowden, that there only shot at getting their story out and not winding up being tortured and buried in prison is to leave the country and have a lot of bargaining chips. I don't think that Snowden will be the last person that plays this game. And our security could be made better if we actually had a responsible government in place that did provide for some outside entities set up by groups like the ACLU, Amnesty International, EPIC, EFF, etc. to have some form of oversight power in the government that is managed so that those that do have information that the public needs to have, they have a more organized and trustworthy methodology of providing that oversight. What we have now is the Wild, Wild West. And it IS our government and the corrupt individuals that have lead it over the last decade or so's fault in allowing it to get in that state.

[Cha]

98. NO, they are not!! Manning wouldn't be looking at 35 fucking years.

[cascadiance]

104. You are confusing prosecuting whistleblowers with prosecuting REAL wrongdoers they expose!

The Channels ARE a joke in terms of having our government ANSWER for wrongdoing that a whistleblower exposes? They've not been working. And when you KILL THE MESSENGER in terms of putting in prison the whistleblower or other ways of silencing and intimidating them, then that just PROVES that it is a joke! And the fact that so many here like you just don't get that, makes it even more of a joke!

[Enthusiast]

249. Watch this one

[progressoid]

261. +1

[burnodo]

5. A different site!

That's progress!

[alittlelark]

133. yup... my 1st thought.

[doc03]

6. +1 The little creep knew the consequences of his actions and chose

to break the law anyway. If you can't do the time don't do the crime. Did he think noting would happen?

[burnodo]

8. creep?

[michigandem58]

10. twerp?

[burnodo]

16. hero?

whistleblower? citizen?

[DontTreadOnMe]

22. convicted... period

He is a convicted criminal.

[burnodo]

28. criminality determined by the state being the only determinant factor

Harriet Tubman was a criminal as well.

[DontTreadOnMe]

33. plenty of people think he was guilty, just not the State

your opinion on the matter really doesn't matter anymore...

[burnodo]

40. well, then

why reply?

[cascadiance]

74. Then is Nelson Mandela the leader of South Africa? He was a "criminal" and...

... shouldn't have "mattered anymore" by your definition. Is Don Siegelman a "criminal" who shouldn't matter any more too?

Face it dude... This country now is starting to have a lot more POLITICAL PRISONERS! Our justice system is broken!

1) Manning is serving 35 years in prison. Those who he's shown to have committed arguably greater crimes aren't being held accountable.
2) John Kiriakou is in prison for being a whistleblower on the crimes of torture our nation has committed, and those who've put that program in place aren't being held accountable.
3) Deric Lostutter, the online hacker that exposed the Stuebenville rapists and authorities wrongfully not pursuing justice there, may face 10 years in prison whereas the rapists themselves at most are serving 2 years and have had CNN journalists crying for their punishment.
4) And of course Snowden probably faces far more punishment than the criminals he's exposed of wrongdoing of all of our civil liberties rights too!

Not to mention tons of banksters getting off scott free while so many with up side down mortgages are losing their homes, etc.

Our justice system needs fixing. And those like you that try to write off those that are victims of it are just making the problem worse!

[zeemike]

149. Well said.

Law and justice is not the same thing....we got lots of laws but little actual justice.

[Starry Messenger]

213. Perfectly said.

[treestar]

279. Our country is nothing like apartheid South Africa

You're just claiming that because it is sometimes justified, it always is.

That government deserved to be brought down. So have several others in history.

Ours, however, does not. It is a human endeavor and thus not perfect. But it does work and can change - see the Civil Rights Act, the increasing acceptance of gay marriage to the point many states allow it.

The law, created by duly elected officials, and not having been challenged as unconstitutional even by Manning, is worthy of being followed. We are entitled to defend ourselves and to classify documents where necessary. If we want change in our government, we have a chance of that.

[cascadiance]

283. The point is that just because our legal system says he's guilty doesn't mean it "ends" now...

... since in many cases like Mandela's those that are convicted of a "crime" are later to be found to be persecuted by a system that protects wrongdoers and goes after those that try to point to their wrongdoing. Now whether we have a government like South Aftrica's is not the issue. The fact that circumstances change, and that later someone like Mandela was found to have been put in prison for political reasons and therefore can later live a life free from that "conviction" when those outside recognize the injustices and correct the system to change it.

As I note, our system now is persecuting those outside the power structure for doing whistleblowing or just challenging the system's current unfairness. I would put Aaron Schwartz also in that latter category too. Although not a whistleblower, he was recognizing the way the system was rigged to reward only those who are wealthy with knowledge that should be something that all could profit from. Even if he perhaps didn't go about it completely in the right way, he was facing penalties way too harsh for what he did, and took his life rather than face those penalties. And those penalties are especially harsh when you consider how others that abuse our laws like banksters (who either break them, or pay government officials to change laws to benefit them to allow them to carry on corruption unpunished).

[treestar]

310. Our country is so good it even has a whistleblower Protection Act

and a procedure for people in government to use if they see something wrong. I am not down with the people who dismiss that. Other countries don't even have that, or a way to challenge the law, even when the law is brought about democratically.

Our government may not be perfect, but it is the best there is and it does not deserve to be brought down. We do not deserve to have people sneer at the WPA. Had these people we are talking about used it, I would be far more sympathetic of their actions.

But just ranting on about how we are the worst country ever makes them look unhinged.

[cascadiance]

311. And it is "so good" that these whistleblower "protection" acts DON'T protect security whistleblowers

Ask congressman Jerry Nadler, who has constantly tried to fix these bills so that they also protect whistleblowers, and has also try to reform the usage of "state secrets privilege" which GRATUITOUSLY has been used to protect the defense and intelligence departments from being brought to court not only by security whistleblowers like Sibel Edmonds, but also by victims of actions of these parts of government such as torture victims like Maher Arar.

This article talks about how the current whistleblower's protection act that you cite doesn't apply to intelligence community whistleblowers as they are "exempted" from its protection... Nadler had earlier fought to try to amend this to throw this exemption out but wasn't able to do so.

http://www.whistleblowersblog.org/2013/06/articles/whistleblowers-government-empl/terrorism/nsa-whistleblower-case-highlights-lack-of-protection-for-intelligence-employees/

Nadler explains very well to Truthout how State Secrets Privilege has been abused to prevent government accountability to both whistleblowers and victims of actions by the security state.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/2845%3Aone-on-one-with-rep-jerrold-nadler

And now when the government moreso than it has ever done in the past is going out and criminalizing whistleblowing, especially when brought against the security parts of our government, I'm sorry, what you say here is SIMPLY NOT TRUE! REAL protection for whistleblowers to do what they are trying to do and expose wrongdoing by these parts of government doesn't exist. Either such whistleblowing is rendered ineffective if the person wants to avoid going to prison (i.e. Sibel Edmonds) or they feel they need to leave the country or face heavy prison penalties like Snowden, Manning, and Kiriakou). The world that Daniel Ellsberg lived in that gave a whistleblower the opportunity to change things for the better really just doesn't exist today. Whether it is the justice department more aggressively punishing whistleblowers than other wrongdoers, or the press basically being more in the back pocket of the wealthy and government powers than they've been before has lead to this state of affairs that needs probably almost revolutionary change. I'm thinking something like a prolonged general strike and the large pain it will create before things change if people get pushed in to the corner enough might be what it takes to force those in power to be answerable for the institutionalized lawbreaking they are doing against our constitution.

As I said, if you talk to whistleblowers, and I've talked personally to at least one or two of them, they would echo what I'm saying here. This current state of affairs of our government's current DISFUNCTION when it comes to providing transparency and protection for those who want to report wrongdoing in its intelligence areas IS the reason why someone like Snowden left the country. If we didn't have the recent history if many whistleblowers being pushed aside like Sibel Edmonds, Russell Tice, and Bradley/Chelsea Manning, I imagine that perhaps he might have gone Daniel Ellsberg's route and stayed and fought it here. I wonder if Ellsberg might have left the country too if he had to release the Pentagon Papers in today's current environment then, in order for the public to hear his allegations.

[dgauss]

102. Did you mean "not just the State"

or are you trying to state some dark truth here?

[DontTreadOnMe]

136. it doesn't matter, I sent out a 5 alarm to the fire department

The Hair Of Fire on DU is at full blaze

[elias7]

194. Hardly full blaze...

Why can't you respond substantively? Rhetorically stated of course.

[DontTreadOnMe]

198. Not full blaze? I saw someone here on DU claiming Manning should win the Nobel Prize

The pro-Manning flames are 100 feet tall.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

219. With talk like that -

You REALLY need to remove that Bernie Saunders image. You're not really fooling anyone.

[Orsino]

288. And no one is ever wrongly convicted. n/t

[The Second Stone]

7. Traitor and treason have very specific meanings in the USA

and Manning was not convicted of treason. He was cleared off aiding the enemy.

[Savannahmann]

14. Don't sweat the details.

MD usually links to the most homophobic sites around to prove his point. We're never sure what the point is, but it's usually so far to the Right the Tea Party would call him a little too extreme.

[freshwest]

135. I also don't get the 'traitor to his country' phrase. It's more of a political term than legal one.

The word has lost its meaning now, especially after being abused by the chickenhawk RWers like O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh. And as you say, he wasn't found guilty of that or aiding the enemy.

Treason is far beyond Manning's abilities:

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

That entry describes a man of the world, who knew well what he was doing, actively worked to defeat the USA and hand it over the 'enemy' of that time, Great Britain.

Manning did what he did in his own way to save his ideal of the USA, but sloppily.

I also feel he was used by others for their purposes, and they were not benign.

[Fumesucker]

9. Nice diagnosis, Dr Frist

[zipplewrath]

11. Not a traitor

He didn't "switch sides" like John Walker. He divulged information out of a sense of justice. You may not agree with his sense of justice, and it may have been misguided in some ways. But there was nothing "traitorous" in his intent or actions.

[Recursion]

13. I'm no Manning fan, but "treason" has a specific meaning

And his actions did not have the mens rea for treason. He did something bad that hurt a lot of people all over the world, but he's not a traitor.

[whatchamacallit]

15. Piss off! n/t

[leftstreet]

17. +1

Can we say that now?

[donheld]

231. +2

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Whatever he is, or isn't, we are in dire need of more like him.

[BlueJazz]

19. I see nothing wrong with telling the world that a part of your country is barbaric.

[Smarmie Doofus]

184. There ya' go. +1 n/t

[ucrdem]

20. He was badly used by Assange and others, no doubt about that.

CNN is apparently his latest beneficiary. Nevertheless he committed a very serious crime, and his motives as he expressed them at the time were not exactly honorable. And while the military court in my view dealt with him as fairly as he could hope for, and he was not ultimately convicted treason, it's hard to see how his actions could be viewed as anything else, whatever his once and future motives might have been.

[Vashta Nerada]

21. Blah, blah, blah, time of war, blah, blah, blah.

He's a whistleblower. I don't care if we're at war (who is it with now? Eastasia?) or not.

What Manning did was right.

[DontTreadOnMe]

23. Blah, blah, blah... he was CONVICTED for his criminal actions

Your opinion isn't going to change that fact.

[DontTreadOnMe]

238. WOW.. your post about guards is revealing

I think you need some therapy.

[ArcticFox]

216. We are not at war

We haven't been at war since 1945. Only Congress can declare war, something it hasn't done for a very very long time. In my opinion, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, they were all unconstitutional.

[Stinky The Clown]

24. That would be Chelsea, okay? Small thing to many. HUGE thing to her.

Easy for ALL of us to honor.

[michigandem58]

30. Written before the change n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

43. Here at DU, the "edit post" function works really well.

Its pretty intuitive, too, but if you need instructions, I'd be happy to provide them. Just lemme know, k?

[Iggo]

245. So fix it, then.

[Little Star]

253. Well now you know. Why not edit your frigging OP?....

[Bjorn Against]

25. Like it or not, most people on this site know you are a right-winger

You bash the left constantly while pretending to be a liberal yourself, but many of us can see through your act. You will never be half the person Chelsea Manning is.

[PowerToThePeople]

35. rec

[RetroLounge]

62. +1000

Obviously

RL

[ucrdem]

65. Chelsea Manning's expressed purpose was to bash the Obama administration which s/he despised.

For all intents and purposes Manning is, or was, a RW basher. Refusing to endorse a basher's bash doesn't make anyone a "right winger" except in upsidedown-land, which is apparently a place many here reside.

[Bjorn Against]

71. We can see through your act as well, you constantly smear the left

You have absolutely no clue in hell what her "expressed purpose" was, you just make crap like this up all the time.

[ucrdem]

86. "Expressed" means s/he said it, and Manning said it, in May 2010

transcript here:

(12:52:33 PM) bradass87: Hilary Clinton, and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning, and finds an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format to the public… =L

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs/

[Bjorn Against]

92. That does not say what you claim it does, not even close

Nowhere in that quote does she say her express purpose is to smear Obama, she does not even say anything remotely like that. This is exactly what I was talking about, you constantly make shit up to smear people. You pretend you have evidence but that "evidence" is usually shit like this that does not say anything even remotely like you claimed it did.

[ucrdem]

95. It's a direct quotation. Your agreement doesn't make it any less a RW bash. nt

[Bjorn Against]

101. Yes, it is a direct quote that says nothing like you claimed it said

Your dishonesty shines for all to see when you claim one thing and then present a quote that does not match your claim at all as "evidence".

[ucrdem]

107. He wanted to embarrass Hillary who was Obama's Secretary of State. He did.

Mission accomplished. If you can find another motive expressed in that chat log, you're welcome to post it.

[Bjorn Against]

111. The quote shows she wanted to make the info available to the public

What she thinks of Hillary is totally irrelevent, people are free to disagree with Hillary without being labeled traitors.

[ucrdem]

118. But that isn't what she said. It's what you want to believe she said. nt

[Bjorn Against]

125. Actually she did say it...

Here is your quote...

(12:52:33 PM) bradass87: Hilary Clinton, and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning, and finds an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format to the public… =L

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs/

So yes she did directly say she wanted to make the information available to the public. Now show me where she said her purpose was to "Bash Obama" because that was your original claim and the quote you provided says nothing remotely like that.

[ucrdem]

128. "Hilary Clinton, and several thousand diplomats ... are going to have a heart attack"

is what s/he actually said. Not exactly honorable, and a far cry from what's been spun by his supporters.

[Bjorn Against]

132. Still don't see anything about her purpose being to "bash Obama"

Because you just made that up, like you make all kinds of crap up. I think it is honorable to expose war crimes even if it does upset Hillary, I care more about the country than I care about whether or not Chelsea Manning makes Hillary Clinton mad.

[ucrdem]

134. Manning's intent was to embarrass the Obama administration by revealing private diplomatic cables.

That's what she said in May 2010. The war crimes business was invented by spinners. If you can find evidence to the contrary in the chat logs, please post it.

[blackspade]

141. blah, blah, blah, crap, crap, crap

Repeating the same discredited 'argument' over and over only shows your lack of knowledge about the entire case.

[ucrdem]

145. I'm quoting Manning's own private expression of his/her intent.

If you can find him privately expressing a different intention, feel free to post it.

[blackspade]

148. Thanks underscoring my point.

Your like a broken record.
Your quote doesn't say what you are claiming.

[ucrdem]

153. Likewise. nt

[blackspade]

187. Dream on.

[Bjorn Against]

143. You have made it clear you have no interest in evidence

If you had an ounce of honesty I would present evidence, but you have shown not just on this thread but in damn near every other thread you post in that you will twist words and distort information to fit your agenda no matter what is presented to you. You are a waste of time and I am done with this back and forth, anyone can read your attempts to claim the quote you presented said something it did not actually say and know you are full of shit.

[ucrdem]

150. The evidence doesn't support your views and you don't like it. Sorry about that. nt

[Number23]

210. That quote has always shattered the "whistleblower" meme

It's pretty obvious that Manning released the info to embarrass diplomats, the DOS and anyone else. There wasn't much of anything "noble" about the intent and that's been pretty well established.

But I blame that on youth more than just about anything else. Manning seemed to have been much more like a kid showing off what could be done than a principled whistleblower. And I really do believe that their apology was sincere.

[Union Scribe]

166. And that, in your subject line, was the real crime wasn't it?

That's the sin that cannot be forgiven by some.

[ucrdem]

299. Yes and no.

It seems to have been the real intent, to the degree that Manning had one. Who knows what Assange was whispering into his ear, but Assange had already established himself as an avid Obama basher, and Manning was in the Army, so it doesn't surprise.

But it wasn't his real crime, which was disclosing thousands of classified military and diplomatic cables. Personally, I have no trouble forgiving Manning, as it's clear to me that he was manipulated by others and set up to take the rap for espionage that he may or may not have actually committed. I have to wonder.

[shenmue]

110. Yeah, just marginalize people who don't agree with you

The ideas that DU is a bastion of free speech and the factions do not push each other into corners, died years ago.

[Bjorn Against]

120. Have you read this person's posts? He is constantly marginalizing anyone who is to the left of him

The US as a nation should be a bastion of free speech, but DU is a community that is supposed to be for progressive minded people. Right-wingers are often not allowed to post on this site and it has always been that way, I don't know what time you are talking about in which DU was a bastion of free speech. If people want to bash the left constantly they should do it somewhere else.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

220. Transparent as hell -

has been since they first showed up. On DU2 they would have been seen for the Troll they are and pizza'd.

[Capt. Obvious]

291. I like you

[Cha]

26. I don't condone it, either. But, at least Manning is

taking responsibility for what he(she) did. Unlike assange and snowden.

And, from what I've read.. Manning is not Gay but Transgender.. I wish her all the luck she'll need to deal with her "next phase in life".

Source: Washington Post

FORT MEADE, Md. — Bradley Manning plans to live as a woman named Chelsea and wants to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible, the soldier said Thursday, a day after being sentenced to 35 years in prison for sending classified material to WikiLeaks.

Manning announced the decision in a written statement provided to NBC’s “Today” show, asking supporters to refer to him by his new name and the feminine pronoun. The statement was signed “Chelsea E. Manning.”

“As I transition into this next phase of my life, I want everyone to know the real me. I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female. Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible,” the statement read.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014572625

[burnodo]

31. Sooooooo Showden should subject himself to the criminal mistreatment of Manning

oh ya...makes a LOT of sense

[Cha]

34. snowden's a coward. end of story.

[former9thward]

39. Snowden is a hero. end of story.

[Cha]

47. Coming from a green/snow worhipper.. big fucking surprise.

[burnodo]

51. Bush and Cheney were war criminals...Barack Obama decided to ognore that

That makes Barack Obama a war criminal...got it, Cha-ling?

[Cha]

67. My bad.. I forgot Asshat..

"Anonymous “appalled” by WikiLeaks"



"...We have been worried about the direction WikiLeaks is going for sometime now. In the past year the focus has moved away from actual leaks and the fight for freedom of information and concentrated more and more on Julian Assange and a rabid scrounging for money," the hackers noted."

h/t fresh http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3515856

[burnodo]

75. doesn't clear Obama from being a war criminal

[ucrdem]

94. By what legal definition is Obama a "war criminal"?

And how are such claims different from calling him a Kenyan or worse?

[burnodo]

100. Bush, Cheney...war criminals

Obama did nothing about it...war criminal. And stop with your racist race-baiting! Obama is a war criminal no matter his race.

[ucrdem]

103. I repeat: By what legal definition is Obama a war criminal?

[burnodo]

109. war criminal

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=8348

the Obama administration has all along had an obligation to prosecute Bush and the rest of them under the Convention against Torture, including U.S. implementing legislation for that convention, making torture a crime, a felony, and in some circumstances punishable by death if death has occurred, which it has, although I don't support the death penalty. But it does give you an idea of the severity of the crimes. And also the Obama administration has an obligation to prosecute these individuals under the four Geneva conventions of 1949, including the U.S. implementing legislation, the U.S. War Crimes Act. So there is an obligation by Obama to prosecute.

[ucrdem]

117. Per "a private organization set up and chartered under Malaysian law." I see.

From your link:

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal Foundation is a private organization set up and chartered under Malaysian law. So it is a creature of Malaysian law.

Thank you for that moment of levity.

[Bobbie Jo]

115. ..... and perilously close to impeachment, apparently.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023515192

[freshwest]

192. Poor kid. It is a hell of a process. Best wishes to her. Still has many years to get things right.

[Cha]

204. Yes! I've read..and hope it's right.. that she could be out in

"7 1/2 years for good behavior".

[freshwest]

222. I'm sure she will.

[liberal N proud]

27. Spot on!

[rhett o rick]

29. For some rationalization is the key to happiness.

Maybe you dont understand we are at war.

[ArcticFox]

221. We are not at war

We haven't been at war since 1945. Only Congress can declare war, something it hasn't done for a very very long time. In my opinion, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, they were all unconstitutional.

[leftynyc]

271. How does an

authorization to use military force passed by congress differ from a declaration of war?

[ArcticFox]

303. really?

With one, you're officially at war. With the other, you're just engaging in hostilities or conducting a police action. If they were the same, ask yourself why Congress hasn't declared war since the forties. It's more difficult politically to declare war. It incomes rights and responsibilities internationally that all this non-war lets you avoid.

[2ndAmForComputers]

32. Yeah, well...

[former9thward]

37. He was not even charged with being a traitor.

There are certain legal requirements for that charge that are in the Constitution. The prosecution did not charge that. The only thing close to it was "aiding the enemy". On that charge he was found innocent.

[HardTimes99]

41. Liar! (Both you and your sources) - nt

[neverforget]

45. What? No People's View link today?

[michigandem58]

52. Sure is

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023515532

[Enrique]

61. the site he links to appears to be a poor man's People's View

an Obama fan site with a grandiose name.

[michigandem58]

69. But I'm told the People's View author despises Obama

I'm so confused.

[Bjorn Against]

81. It is a troll site, trolls often take both sides of an issue

In one article the guy (you?) says he will vote against Obama because Obama is not supportive enough of gay rights, in other articles he spews homophobia. He will either be a big gay rights supporter or a homophobic bigot depending on what better suits his ability to stir shit at the given time. The guy is a troll and trolls are not nearly as concerned about consistency as they are concerned about stirring shit.

[Enrique]

89. if his goal is making Obama supporters look like assholes

he's doing a good job.

[michigandem58]

112. Interesting analysis!

[morningfog]

139. Hit and run flame bait troll.

[davidpdx]

170. That's the worst kind

I refer to them as drive-by insults

[neverforget]

185. me?

[morningfog]

186. No, the OP.

Apologies for any confusion.

[neverforget]

188. No problem. I didn't think so but you never know nowadays

[dtom67]

46. Since Nuremberg (at least)....

it has been accepted that participating in war crimes cannot be defended by claiming you were under orders as a soldier.It was no defense for the nazis and it is no defense for any American soldier. Therefore, a soldier is obligated to speak out if he or she witnesses wrongdoing by their government. Since the track record of whistle blowers that went "thru channels " is basically 100% prison time, an external leak is the next reasonable step.

But, do not worry. The government will never again overstep their bounds or behave unethically.


Which is nice to know, since there will be no whistle blowers from now on. Let the Government do oversight on itself; that has worked SO well in the corporate world......


And as far as emotional issues are concerned, try three years in prison, forced nakedness,and solitary confinement ( which is viewed by the rest of the World as " torture &quot , and show us YOUR emotional resolve.


And as for sympathy, I have none for the police state that you are gifting to your children.

By shutting down whistle blowing, that is exactly what has been done....

[SammyWinstonJack]

156. +1

[Th1onein]

49. So is Dick Cheney, but we don't see him being sentenced to rot in prison for 35 years.

And Bradley Manning has done far more for decency and morality than Dick ever has, or ever will do. Justice is JUSTICE, and this ain't justice.

[arcane1]

50. Please provide evidence of legal treason or STFU n/t

[michigandem58]

57. Given your laser-like focus on the law

I'm sure you endorse his conviction.

[arcane1]

87. I expected that non-reply.

[mike_c]

54. like it or not, I don't give a rat's buttocks about your opposition to transparancy....

Sunlight is still the best disinfectant.

[burnodo]

55. Like it or not, your continued presence on DU

is a condemnation of this website

[Bobbie Jo]

121. Says the guy....

Who has been here a whopping 4 months.

Speaking of condemnation of this site, here's a sample of your "presence."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=303588&sub=trans

[ucrdem]

126. Holy cow.

Fast work. Thanks alerters and juries!

[Number23]

211. I know. I just about died when I saw that post. 9 hidden posts in 4 little months

and he's worried about how OTHER people look here.

[Bobbie Jo]

226. Bizarre, no?

....and already voting people off the island, to boot.

[lamp_shade]

273. Make that 24.

[Link Speed]

56. Yeah, and Mi Lai wasn't shit

Fuck all that

Who writes the rules?

Who are the sheep who follow?

Stray dogs that live on the highway, walk on three legs.

The weak kowtow to the strong who write the rules.

[dkf]

58. A traitor to you and your authoritarian surveillance government perhaps.

[99Forever]

59. Bullshit.

Manning is a hero. One with substantially more integrity and honor than the the scumbags he exposed. Manning is a true Patriot, unlike the authoritarian jerks you bow down to.

[dairydog91]

60. Treason is morally neutral. Its morality is determined entirely by who's being betrayed.

I think a country which waddled into another country based on false intelligence and killed over a hundred thousand of that country's citizens SHOULD be betrayed, and betrayed often.

[RetroLounge]

63. A teabagger would believe that, yes

RL

[mick063]

64. Our elected representatives are traitors. Almost all of them.

Like it, or not.


They have damaged the nation much more than Manning could ever dream of.

[forestpath]

177. +100000

[freshwest]

66. I'm reccing because that article has new information. But I don't think he's a traitor or hero.

I consider him a victim of 1% media stars who didn't give a damn about the consequences to him. He was considered a lesser human being, a source for fodder or meat for the grinder like they see people like him and most of us.

This has all been a show for them to divide the 99% while the 1% fight over the loot. They are playing a game of chess, we're the pawns, but the kings remain in place, fighting for who has the most money and power.

None of these guys who used Manning's stolen data have gone through what Manning has gone through. He's a patsy.

I'm not mad at him and the term 'volunteered' in the piece doesn't mean much with a fragile young person with no help from his very much dysfunctional family, if reports are true.

He's also not mentally ill from his gender situation. He's sure of what he is and had his priorities out of order in the bad hand he got in life, no family support, and a need to find a way in life. He had military in his family so maybe he thought he would escape that way. I've known people who joined to escape their families, and you know, it's pretty fucking bad when going to a war zone is better than family. Yet is happens.

He was way off the mark with how the world works and the article points out the insanity of his concerns, deep stress and depression. He is intelligent. As the old saying goes, 'It's a fine line between genius and madness.'

I don't see the point of this article now, but glad to get more information. At the very best, he will leave prison in 8 years. He could finish college and by that time be ready to go on with his life.

I cannot say he is a hero and cannot call him a traitor, as either would require a maturity that he apparently does not have, from reports. If lives were lost, and it is said they were, I can't see any of these people as heroes. I don't believe in martyrs or sacrificial lambs. It's sick to want satisfaction against an supposed enemy when it's not you in the dock or prison or whatever.

I see Trayvon Martin's parents as heroes by being more than the people arrayed against them. Their nobility of character in the face of some really low down doings makes the haters look bad. But they and him are degraded with media satire to pump up Manning's reputation. I don't believe that they nor Manning would care for it or find it funny or enlightening. More like vampiring.

If he hears of what was done to a young man who didn't get half the chances that Manning did in life, and is dead, and then having his actions justified by some odd ball juxtaposition, he would be ashamed of the words the satirists put in his mouth. For money.

I think better of Manning than his so-called media supporters. They will use him until they can't get a headline anymore, then discard him like Assange did when they've made all the money off his life they could.

They make me sick.

[JustAnotherGen]

70. +1

And I rec'd the OP because the author OP linked to wrote their opinion well.

[freshwest]

200. Some good writers on that blog. I know that you are more knowledgeable on this national

security and military life than I am.

If you want, send me a PM or explain your view on the issues on an appropriate OP and send me a link then. I don't feel qualified to speak on this kind of thing. I just try to go at it logically. See you later!

[lumpy]

151. A well thought-out, level headed statement. Refreshing to see.

Thanks

[freshwest]

203. Thanks for the comment. See you around.

[Cha]

232. Good post, fresh.

[4bucksagallon]

68. One could guess by reading some of the responses how many have loved ones,

or have ever worn the uniform of the military. Those sworn to protect the USA and their fellow Marines, soldiers, etc. don't appreciate actions like Manning took no matter what he "thought". That is why they have a chain of command structure in the military. Like it or not, traitors are still traitors.

[MH1]

116. +1

I would add, if Manning really did what (s)he did out of "conscience", (s)he would have been ready to be a martyr for the cause. (S)he would have understood damned well what her/his colleagues would have felt about her/his actions, and why they would feel that way, and would have respected their reaction. (S)he he would have weighed that cost carefully. I saw no evidence that happened. Therefore I conclude it was not an act of conscience, but an act of "gotcha", revenge, lashing out.

[blackspade]

138. And you would be wrong.

but thanks for your 'opinion'

[truebluegreen]

142. She was neither charged with, nor convicted of "treason."

But who could guess that by reading your post?

[NuclearDem]

144. I did, and I'm glad she decided to expose this shit.

[mick063]

158. I wore a uniform for six years at the height of the cold war.

I swore an oath to defend the Constitution. I was prepared to give the ultimate sacrifice, if called upon, to defend it.

I was in Panama when General Noriega was captured.

Precisely why I am sympathetic to Manning. Precisely why I am extremely angry at our present political leadership.

[4bucksagallon]

180. Never been in combat have you where rules no longer apply.

I would suggest if Manning was a combat soldier, which he wasn't, and someone in a "secure rear area" released information that "just might" compromise his/your squad, platoon, or company you probably would feel differently. At least one could hope you would. War is not a play by the rules video game, as much as the Geneva Convention and code of conduct would like you to believe. Ever hear of Son Thang massacre, no of course you didn't, interesting story and one you would have to experience to appreciate. It's cast of characters includes the RW hero Ollie North. I could relate the whole story but it is a long one and with time I have forgotten some of the events that led up to the final act. But at the time I can say our company had less casualties after, for a time. War crime, yes. Necessary it depends on whether you value your fellow Marines, and soldiers more than the enemy. From what I read on here some of you place equal value on the enemies lives as you do your own military......... truly sad.

[mick063]

207. For me, it is about defending the Constitution

From all enemies, foreign and domestic.

As an old man, the only weapons I can effectively wield is political support and a few words.

As a person that believes our Constitution has been under constant attack beginning with the Patriot Act, I lack trust that our leadership is regarding the Constitution with the same regard as personal political power.

It is the NSA surveillance, the influence of money in politics, the lack of transparency in government, and the general failure to govern that leads me to believe that our Constitution is in great peril. I consider this to be abnormal times. I consider a great deal of information due for public consumption is kept secret for the sole purpose of individuals maintaining political power.

I would typically not condone any actions done by those that reveal "secrets", but my lack of faith in our government questions whether secrets are intended to be kept from known enemies or secrets are intended to keep our public misinformed for reasons other than national security. There has been information leaked that appears to only serve the purpose of retaining personal power for individuals, through mitigating public perception of failure, or revealing criminal acts, that warrant such information to be deemed a secret. Secret from me the citizen, not from an enemy. This leads me to believe that the infrastructure considers me to be the enemy.

I am philosophically opposed to revealing secrets unless I believe the secrets are used to manipulate citizens. With faith in our government, I would very much support due process and punishment for people that reveal sensitive information. Restore my faith and I will once again support your view.

[ArcticFox]

225. thank you on every level

[zeemike]

164. The oath you take in the military is not to defend the USA.

It is to defend the constitituion....I take it you have never worn the uniform or taken the oath...

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

[4bucksagallon]

181. Did you read what you wrote??????????? LOL!

[zeemike]

248. Well I did not write the oath.

Did you read it?...and do you understand defending the constitution?...and why that is important?

[20score]

175. My military service was just as important as yours, and I think you couldn't be more wrong.

[4bucksagallon]

201. Wow, really, and you also couldn't be more wrong but carry on.

[myrna minx]

199. So to you, it's patriotic to cover up for war crimes? Who is the "traitor"? The one who commits the

crime or the one to reveals it? Wow. My military loved ones managed to live by the Geneva convention. Your response is rather telling of your moral code.

[4bucksagallon]

209. My moral code? My code was always to protect my men to the bitter end.

What's your? Moral codes are pretty well nonexistent in combat you don't have to believe me..... but unfortunately it's true.

[myrna minx]

212. Hey, I believe in the Geneva Convention. I believe in convicting war criminals and liars who

bring the nation to war via lies and deception and not whistle blowers who expose war crimes.

On edit - I'm done engaging you. People who served know what a grave accusation "traitor" is, and it's not easily tossed around like it is in this thread.

[4bucksagallon]

215. Really when I see GWB, Cheney and the rest of them on trial then I will believe you.

Until then as anyone in the military can tell you shit rolls downhill and it's the guy at the bottom of the hill that gets shit on. That usually is someone of lesser rank. The structure of the military almost ensures that, with rare exceptions.

[ArcticFox]

223. Support my country, right or wrong

Even my military veteran relatives face up that notion years ago.

[freshwest]

233. As I have said, I don't undertand the military mind. There is an oath they take that is significant.

I don't remember the words in it, but it starts with the Constitution. I don't know if any other nation has an oath to its founding document.

It indicated profound thinking and serious intent. I don't think if I'd said those words I would have broken them.

But people's minds are not all the same. I don't see Manning as having a sound mind despite IQ, because of isolation and possibly abuse / neglect growing up.

Not all poeple react that way to neglect / abuse, but it breaks some. I'd hate to live the life she has been living and it's incomprehensible to me.

So I don't want to judge, but I respect your beliefs. And yes it was a crime. No amount of hype will take away the danger that it could pose to fellow soldiers, who count on that data being kept safe.

[4bucksagallon]

237. Soldiers don't usually get to pick their wars or their battles. If anything leaks out that

endangers our fighting men that is a crime. I opposed going into Iraq like many did but once the decision is made to go the soldier is due the backing of us and his government. One should not have to have served in the military to understand that. I came back from Vietnam and joined the VVAW, am still a member to this day. But even though I opposed the war I had to keep in mind that the soldiers in the boonies were just like me, when I was there, a pawn in the game. I could have run away to Canada or stayed in school to avoid going but it was something, at that time, that appeared to be the right thing to do. Ask not, domino theory, khe sanh, Ia Drang, gulf of Tonkin incident, and on and on. Of course that was proven wrong later on, but I admit when I am wrong unlike many others. I don't hold any moral high ground, but I ask anyone that looks at this to see it from the soldiers perspective. The soldiers are the ones, even though we can disagree about the war being right or wrong, they face the ultimate, sacrifice if someone like Manning decides on a whim to release information that can be used to kill or cripple our soldiers and/or their fighting spirit. Like I said he was a rear echelon pogie that was bored and wanted to stir the shit, and then seemed surprised when the shit landed on him. Doh! So thanks for understanding and your thoughtful reply unlike some of the others I have had here. Got to laugh or it can cripple you, and I refuse to be crippled or shut down. Let them put me on ignore, I have gained 2 more in the last week, that's that many less of them I have to deal with. Personally I don't put anyone on ignore, like the godfather said "keep your friends close and your enemies closer".

[freshwest]

240. Well. this is what I wrote the last time there was a major mess about soldiers on a DU thread:

A hurricane is nothing compared to combat. Being buffeted by rain and wind, a force of nature, is a far cry from the tide of emotions that must pass through everyone who has been in the field of battle.

The drudgery, the deaths, both friendly and not, the questions of the validity of one's actions and the reasons to train and perform one's duties, are much stronger than being out in the wind and rain of a storm, a heat wave or a snow storm.

I do not approve of any of our nation's adventures abroad, nor do I care for the military budget being the sacred cow that must not be touched, while people who have paid in civilian life to arm and feed and house and care for soldiers, perish. Our world has had this pageantry of the hero forever, and winners and losers.

Each and every war transforms not only the nation conquered, but the nation that does the act. Wiser souls have said there are no winners in wars. Even the Pope has made a declaration that they change nothing of substance, the problems of mankind still remain. All that has changed are the boundaries on maps or the size of war profiteers bank accounts.

We have been coarsened by our constant militarism. It was not the plan of the Founding Fathers to behave how we have for over half a century. Because all those with good intent or desperation, take your pick, depending on the soldier you know, do not profit like the private contractors nor the companies that make the weapons and push for their product to be used. A product that has murdered millions, shredded the conscience of a nation, polluted the Earth and broken the hearts of mankind.

Yet the soldier, unless they are proven to be guilty of a crime against humanity, is as much a victim as those he kills, in one respect. Because he carries death inside him for the rest of his life, has broken the connection of family and life and love for those he killed. The country or vision he may have thought he joined to save, is not what he is anymore, no matter how he tries to make up for it or deny it.

We are children, both men and women. We are easily influenced beings. Those who have time to stand back from the tumult of war and do business, like the Cheneys and others we love to hate, will not be harmed, and they see us as expendables on their bottom line.

There is a meaning in symbolism that is irresistable and compelling, deeply spiritual and mind dumbing at the same time. It is beyond the power of most humans to resist. The scene in the manger of Mary with the Christ child, and other such iconic visions, touch us in an inner place we dare not put into words, that we hold sacred and will defend, to the point of insanity. But I will try to put into words my feelings about this ritual.

They are protecting the Unknowns. A man they have never met, nameless, but a human being and a brother in arms. That symbolism to me represents the country or government itself, which is much larger than the military. The libertarian view of life, is one cares for those one knows, and the all of the rest of humanity one doesn't know, are of no account, as it doesn't help the self to survive.

These men are not protecting the tomb out of jingoism. It is out of a sense of shared humanity, that those who have served in such a way, near death or with death, struggle to find again. Many rituals are this way, births, marriages, funerals, speaking in images what is too painful to express in words.

I don't have any problem with this, but it should not be used as an excuse for more wars and I don't believe it is. Since these are volunteers, they aren't adding to the national debt, or whatever some may complain about.

I have no worries or concerns about those on this duty doing something worthless or dangerous. They are honoring someone who faced the ultimate danger in combat and died from it. They didn't die and are grateful for that. They want to celebrate that someone cared enough to die. Many of us know that some things are more important than our own safety and our lives. There are some things worth sacrifice of many our hopes and dreams to protect others.

Now, it may be argued that the persons were drafted, served not wholly of their free will or well informed opinion. But they were human beings once who enjoyed the warmth of sun and the relief of the rain, the feeling of grass beneath their feet, the love of a mother, perhaps a lover, or the many other pleasures of life. I feel they are guarding those things, not a dead body inside a tomb.

Just my two cents.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021659101#post120

The thread was devolving into some bashing back and forth and I just felt I had to express it. Hope it explains my views to you.

[4bucksagallon]

241. I also replied on that thread and here is what I said then....

I can't believe some of the disrespectful crap I have seen posted on this thread.
As a veteran and proud member of VVAW I still can't wrap my head around how some of those with high post counts can get away with this. You can't tell me they have never revealed themselves before. I am somewhat shocked by what I have read from some long term members........

I did check some of the most notoriously hostile posters on that thread and found out they are gone now, some of them, not all. By the way I still believe what I wrote. I read your post also and it was noteworthy, and it sounds like it came from someone I could have discussions and even agreements with, so I thank you.

[Democracyinkind]

259. Yeah because the chain of command has proven sooo competent in uncovering war crimes.

Wake up, the chain of command is about as helpful with war crimes as the police unions are in cases of abuses by cops.

[bvar22]

72. The Royalists and Tories called the Colonial insurgents "Traitors" too.

I hope I would have the courage to do what Manning & Snowden have done.
They are rare.

They "saw WRONG, and tried to Right It."
That makes them a Profile in Courage.

We need million more "traitors" like Manning & Snowden if we want a chance to reclaim our Democracy!

[Enthusiast]

246. Right on! nt

[Matariki]

76. Like it or not, he exposed war crimes.

Get your priorities straight.

[Travis_0004]

82. Did he attempt to expose these war crimes before releasing the cables?

If the goal was to expose war crimes, why not release a few cables, or even few thousand. I won't support Manning because he released 700,000, and there is now way he read every one of them.

[burnodo]

91. I don't believe his cables threatened anyone

it's just something the government says to bolster their outrage

[ljm2002]

78. Like it or not, Manning is not a traitor...

...based on the government's own choice not to prosecute him as such.

[MannyGoldstein]

79. Should people with overdue library books get a death sentence?

Should Manning get 35 years?

I think that's the larger issue here. The White House is using draconian punishments to dissuade folks from peeking into their comfortable hypersecrecy.

[leftynyc]

272. The White House didn't

sentence Manning. A military judge did.

[MannyGoldstein]

277. "And they would never answer that question."

The White House was deeply involved in this - at the very least, they set the "destroy Manning" tone, but likely more:

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/8/22/he_wanted_to_help_america_manning

ALEXA O’BRIEN: Throughout the beginning of the discovery process, in the motions part of the trial, you know, there was an attempt by defense to get communications between Russell Travers, who was a senior official at the National Counterterrorism Center, who was picked essentially to be the National Security Staff’s senior adviser for information access and security—and the White House Press Secretary called the investigation of WikiLeaks and Manning administration-wide. So, I really want to talk to you about this case in a larger context. And have you found any evidence that the investigation or the prosecution of Manning or WikiLeaks was being coordinated by the National Security Council or the White House?

DAVID COOMBS [Manning's lawyer]: I haven’t, but I would have no doubt that multiple agencies, certainly Department of State, FBI and other agencies of the alphabet soup-type example, would have some involvement in this case. It was clear that every day we had a group of people behind the prosecution, that just sat there. Occasionally they would pass notes to the trial counsel. Obviously I don’t know what was on those notes. During some of the breaks, I would walk up and introduce myself, say, "Hi, I’m David Coombs. How are you? And what do you do for a living?" And they would never answer that question. So, from my perspective, clearly there were outside influences. And it would explain why the government did take the position that it did of essentially win at all cost. They never deviated from pushing the envelope, where I would think a trial counsel who’s really kind of concerned about not only getting a just outcome, but having that outcome stand up on appeal, take certain steps to eliminate appellate issues. In this case, the government was never concerned about any of those.

[leftynyc]

296. Big deal

The judge can do whatever he/she thinks proper. While I wont shred a tear if he's executed, they shouldn't give him what he wants. This country doesn't make martyrs.

[Warren Stupidity]

80. That's just fucking wrong.

Treason has a specific definition and specific requirements to be met before a person can be charged with treason. Manning met none of the requirements. Your fucking awful rightwing hate blog should go away. It has no place here. Enough is enough.

[NaturalHigh]

83. Agreed!

He betrayed his oath to his country.

[Babel_17]

84. "he never seemed to fit in"

That's the kind of line I'm unsurprised to see in the bio of anyone who did stuff that was helpful to humanity.

[The Link]

85. Bradley Manning is a traitor in the same way that you are a progressive.

[truebluegreen]

147. +100

[TheProgressive]

88. Sieg heil...

[TBF]

90. Folks who oppose authoritarianism often "struggle" in such a society -

it's more a reflection of the society then themselves. As far as I'm concerned Chelsea Manning is A-OK.

[darkangel218]

96. No, he isnt a traitor.

[geckosfeet]

97. I don't agree.

[Initech]

99. So let me get this straight.

Bradley Manning is a traitor in that he only exposed the people who actually committed real, serious acts of terrorism. Those people walk free. He doesn't. Hmm... let's think about this here.

[Orsino]

289. He was a traitor for breaking faith with the regime that trusted him.

The exposure of illegal and immoral activity made him something else, too.

[Cerridwen]

105. Thank God it passed!

Oh, sorry. Wrong username.

Please proceed.

[SammyWinstonJack]

162. heh.

[customerserviceguy]

106. Agreed

He himself (or is it now herself?) said that what he/she did was wrong. Thirty five years for betraying an oath, with the possibility of time off for good behavior and early parole, that's fine by me.

[shenmue]

108. Thank you.

Someone finally had the guts to say it.

[damnedifIknow]

113. I see backwards thinking shows up even here now and then

I thought that was exclusive to right wing ideology.

[stupidicus]

130. no, rightwingnuts don't have a monopoly on much

if anything of that kind.

After deciding to join and read posts around here a year or so ago, it's become painfully obvious, and something that warrants an occasional mentioning imo.

[railsback]

119. Treason is bit rough

Emotionally unstable, weak, delusional…. There's nothing heroic about taking revenge, which is all Manning was doing.

[Jakes Progress]

122. Chelsea will be remembered for her bravery.

Obama and those who willfully ignore what is happening will be remembered for their craven vindictiveness.

[blackspade]

123. Like it or Not, that is just your opinion

with no basis in fact or law.

[bvar22]

290. An "opinion" that tells us a lot about the OP himself ..

...and the sado-fantasy world he has created for his own self gratification.

Manning was NOT charged with Treason.
Case Closed.

[H2O Man]

124. gosh

[Politicub]

127. The trans and homophobia is out of line

Believe what you want about Chelsea being a traitor, but don't attack her for her sexuality and gender.

[morningfog]

137. Oh look, troll trolling.

[niyad]

140. like it or not, many on this board find your posts tedious and BORING beyond belief. some, on the

other hand, find them great comic relief.

[GP6971]

146. What I want to know is

how did an E-3 have access to all the information????????? The security world's tenant is the "need to know". In my opinion, this was a failure all the way around.

I don't condemn Manning......he would have been screwed if he went through channels and would probably be dead by now.

[Stinky The Clown]

152. Second time: It is C-H-E-L-S-E-A

You can edit your OP.

[ZombieHorde]

154. No she's not.

If compromising the lives of our brave men and women serving overseas is traitorous, then all who support US military action is a traitor.

[OmahaBlueDog]

155. When you enlist in the armed services of the US, an officer reads you the Articles of War

When you are given a Top Secret clearance, and access to Top Secret information, you are told in no uncertain terms that bad things will happen if you break that trust.

Manning knew the rules, and broke the rules. In most nations and most armies, Manning would have been summarily shot or hanged. Here, Manning was given due process under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and was found guilty of breaking the law.

[Bobbie Jo]

165. You are correct, of course

The military system is not a democracy in any way, shape, or form. Actions of this nature are dealt with, severely.

That said, I don't believe Manning is a traitor, nor was she charged with treason.

[davidpdx]

174. Well put

The traitor label is a bit harsh. He did violate his oath and in the military that is serious. Whether the sentence was too harsh or not is not up to me to judge, that has been done.

[pauliedangerously]

159. I don't think she's a traitor

That said, I don't believe that releasing that info was the right thing to do either. As V said, "I'm not killing you for what you wanted to do, I'm killing you for what you did." Manning broke an oath and two wrongs don't make a right.

So, she exposed atrocities. Is that going to prevent future ones? Nope. Other than pissing off the entire planet and providing fodder for the Libertarians, what's been accomplished here?

[frylock]

160. i don't like you, and Manning wasn't charged with treason. try and keep up, mkay?

[LittleGirl]

161. too bad for you

I hope you see the light some day.

[caseymoz]

163. I'm sorry I don't have any sympathy . . .

. . . for your not having sympathy. He didn't sell or give secrets to an enemy power. He exposed activity by our government and our military (personnel) that were objectively criminal.

I'm not sorry to declare this: I've had it with "our brave men and women serving overseas." Bring them home, let them practice bravery here.

I'm tired of interference and imperialism, many times fatal, being called bravery. And for all the praise we're giving our people for their courage, as far as I could see, they're still coming home as bad off as Vietnam Vets, and with futures at least as bleak.

I can't say what's going to happen in the near future, but somehow I think in a century or two when all the political issues are in the dead past, Manning is going to be remembered in a better light than any of our other brave men and women overseas.

Though it's not necessarily their fault, "our brave men and women overseas" are on the wrong side of history, and the wrong side morally. The best way we can show we appreciate them is get them on the right side. And Manning did his best.

[Celefin]

257. +1

Very well put.

[OnyxCollie]

167. Manning is a traitor

the way someone who breaks a window to save a dog or child left behind in a hot car is a vandal.

[darkangel218]

178. +1 million!

My thoughts exactly.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

191. I'd leave it. There's a cruelty to these OPs...

Last edited Fri Aug 23, 2013, 09:42 AM - Edit history (3)

like something I'd hear from a Teabagger neighbor. As a matter of fact, said neighbor and I had a massive blowout over something just like this in 2005:

Bradley Manning was a gay American (at a time when being openly gay wasn’t allowed in the military), struggling with his gender, emotionally unstable, opposed to the war we were fighting—who volunteered to join the United States Army.

Keyword: Volunteered.

"Progressive," my tight white ass.

[William769]

172. Like it or not, Chelsea is a patriot who took a bullet for the rest of us. nt

[Little Star]

255. +100000000000000000000000

[MNBrewer]

173. No, he really isn't a traitor

Like it or not, he isn't a traitor. And his leaks compromised no lives, that's just wishful thinking on your part.

[myrna minx]

176. You and your fellow travelers should be ashamed for both your bigotry and right wing BS.

I thought I'd add your fellow travelers to my post since it's such a moment of pride for them:

Cha uponit7771 greatauntoftriplets ucrdem michigandem58 ROFF liberal N proud sheshe2 mwrguy 4bucksagallon freshwest JustAnotherGen NaturalHigh MH1 shenmue railsback Tikki BklnDem75 NoPasaran Rincewind CakeGrrl OmahaBlueDog Jamaal510

[darkangel218]

179. .

[tblue]

183. Hot dang, myrna minx!

You made my night. What bullies there are around here sometimes. It's gotten old.

[20score]

190. Thanks! Great job! Wish I had thought of adding other... travelers/@$R$^&^$% to my post.

[myrna minx]

195. I'm assuming that the fellow travelers of this OP have watched the "classified" video

that C. Manning released and is now sentenced to 35 years for doing so. After watching the horror of that war crime "classified" video and not being able to "un-see" what was done in our name as Americans, it's appalling to see the fist pumping celebration of these fellow travelers of the OP. It's disturbing and sickening.

I cannot believe that the trans-phobic bigotry of the OP and his fellow travelers are accepted here. This is the most sickening display of hate.

[MisterP]

218. alert results

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Needs to be said.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: they forgot uzair and stevenleser
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: Agree with the alerter.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This OP has been a disruptor since he joined. He's not even that subtle about it.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

[myrna minx]

252. Thanks for posting the results and thanks to the jury.

If the bigotry is allowed to stand, the challenge to the bigotry should be allowed to stand too.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

224. Oh look -

much of my ignore list! I knew I had them there for a good reason.

[bvar22]

286. The TRUTH will set us free!!!

Thanks myrna minx, for the courage to inscribe this Wall of Shame at DU.


You WILL know them by their works!

[Capt. Obvious]

293. Like

[idwiyo]

193. Your support for LGBTQ rights is so great, you can't even tell the difference between been gay and

been a transgender woman. Never mind addressing a woman with male pronouns.

Sorry buddy, your post is pure and unadulterated bullshit full of bigotry.

[Little Star]

254. +1

[TheKentuckian]

196. Wrong again. Factually, morally, constitutionally, legally, spiritually. Incorrect.

[HardTimes99]

208. It's shameful, as is the number of DUers reccing this utter shite.

[Enthusiast]

247. It serves a purpose.

It reveals just who these posters are and where their sympathies lie.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

202. Awesome. Another Crap Blog for DU to chew up and spit out.

Only this time the offender isn't "Spandan," it's "Allen Clifton," armed with a degree in Political Science, and a belief that he "stirs the pot for the Progressive movement."

[Fire Walk With Me]

205. Dear author, you are an idiot, one useful to war criminals. n/t

[ArcticFox]

214. you are a fool

The Apache tape didn't put anyone in harm's way; the senseless killing of civilians did. The messenger didn't hurt America's rep; that was brought about by the liars and war criminals he exposed. When our tax dollars are so horribly misused, used to murder innocent people around the globe, we have a right to know.

[NealK]

235. No she's not a traitor.

No lives have been compromised and she was found not guilty of “aiding the enemy”.

[Why Syzygy]

236. What is the difference between Manning and this guy >

Thompson then flew over an irrigation ditch filled with dozens of bodies. Shocked at the sight, he radioed his accompanying gunships, knowing his transmission would be monitored by many on the radio net: "It looks to me like there's an awful lot of unnecessary killing going on down there. Something ain't right about this. There's bodies everywhere. There's a ditch full of bodies that we saw. There's something wrong here."

Movement from the ditch indicated to Thompson that there were still people alive in there. Thompson landed his helicopter and dismounted. David Mitchell, a sergeant and squad leader in 1st Platoon, C Company, walked over to him. When asked by Thompson whether any help could be provided to the people in the ditch, the sergeant replied that the only way to help them was to put them out of their misery. Second Lieutenant William Calley (commanding officer of the 1st Platoon, C Company) then came up, and the two had the following conversation:

Thompson: What's going on here, Lieutenant?
Calley: This is my business.
Thompson: What is this? Who are these people?
Calley: Just following orders.
Thompson: Orders? Whose orders?
Calley: Just following...
Thompson: But, these are human beings, unarmed civilians, sir.
Calley: Look Thompson, this is my show. I'm in charge here. It ain't your concern.
Thompson: Yeah, great job.
Calley: You better get back in that chopper and mind your own business.
Thompson: You ain't heard the last of this!

Thompson took off again, and Andreotta reported that Mitchell was now executing the people in the ditch. Furious, Thompson flew over the northeast corner of the village and spotted a group of about ten civilians, including children, running toward a homemade bomb shelter. Pursuing them were soldiers from the 2nd Platoon, C Company. Realizing that the soldiers intended to murder the Vietnamese, Thompson landed his aircraft between them and the villagers. Thompson turned to Colburn and Andreotta and told them that if the Americans began shooting at the villagers or him, they should fire their M60 machine guns at the Americans: "Y'all cover me! If these bastards open up on me or these people, you open up on them. Promise me!" He then dismounted to confront the 2nd Platoon's leader, Stephen Brooks. Thompson told him he wanted help getting the peasants out of the bunker:

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson,_Jr.#Military_career

[NCTraveler]

242. I have the ability to think she is not a hero...

while at the same time having sympathy for her. I really see her as a hero in no way at all. But she is not the only one in life with many personal struggles. It also seems as though, at the time, she felt she was doing the country a service. And she did. She doesn't seem to have done in order to lavish in the limelight. In her head it was something necessary. While not heroic in my mind, it was brave. She went way out of her comfort zone to do something she felt was right at the time. She took an enormous risk that not many of us would be willing to take.

The conversations that she and others have elevated will make us all better. It will make our country better as long as we don't let the narrative die down. I don't think she is a hero. I do have respect for her. I have no ill will toward her. I have sympathy for the spot she has put herself in. She is brave.

[Celefin]

260. Thanks for your nuanced post

Refreshing and increasingly rare these days.
Oh, and I happen to agree with you wholeheartedly.
You can become a hero by accident.
You can't be brave by accident.

[CBGLuthier]

244. No, she is a criminal, but not a traitor

She did break laws. I think she should be pardoned for doing so. She is not a traitor. Time of war is forever now so we can never do the right thing by your "logic."

[Octafish]

251. That's what they said on television, too.

The same channels that said Iraq was going to destroy America, back in 1991 and 2003.

They lied. Twice. They also ignore that Iraq was picked out as "our" oil patch way back when Prescott was a traitor.

Know your BFEE: War and Oil are just two longtime Main Lines of Business

[Puzzledtraveller]

256. I could respect your opinion that he is a traitor BUT!

Making mention of his personal issues and life really makes your comments seem nasty and mean spirited.

[4Q2u2]

267. His Defense

That was part of his defense, they also reiterated it at the sentencing phase. It does seem pretty bad that even his defense would use such a circumstance. The tactic may have been thought to be sound for Manning's defense but it seems to be something that would set back the Transgendered fight as a whole.

[Democracyinkind]

258. What's the deal with all those fake "progressive" and "liberal" blogs you keep peddling?

It's as if you had special access to a dusty third way library.

[malthaussen]

265. Nope, not treasonous.

Firstly, the Court so ruled. Secondly, the Court established that the info dump did not contain information that put lives at risk. If he had done so, knowingly, then you'd have a case. If he had done so, unknowingly, you'd have a harder case.

His personal life and condition is immaterial to the case and frankly of no interest to me. By referring to it at all you weaken your own case, since it can be construed as a personal attack, an attempt to establish guilt by character assassination. This is beneath dignity to discuss further.

You also have no case if he "could" have released information that endangered fellow soldiers. "Can" and "Could" are too big of words for any court to deal with, nevermind any individual. I "could" accidentally have shot my fellow soldier in the back on patrol, but as I did not, I can be held to no charge.

Lastly, I would argue that an act is only treasonous if it violates the interests of one's country. But the act committed by PFC Manning was clearly in the best interests of our country. Official wrongdoing should be exposed.

-- Mal

[Dash87]

266. The "support the troops!" trump card is lame at this point.

It's a lame cliche and phony appeal to emotion. There hasn't been any evidence that terrorists have used information from Wikileaks, and the assertion that Bradley Manning put Our Brave Men and Women™ in danger not true.

[Democracyinkind]

268. War criminals go free, those who expose them get jailed.

Yay USA! We're the freest!!

[Capt. Obvious]

274. How you only have 1 hidden post is beyond me

[Safetykitten]

275. She will always be a patriot and hero. History will show it. You think only bad people are in jail?

You better read up on history.

[KansDem]

276. So are Bush and Cheney. What's your point?

[Bluenorthwest]

284. Manning was not even charged with treason, much less convicted of treason, so this is false.

The word has a meaning, and treason had nothing to do with this case or the sentence for this case. The extreme dishonesty in this post is clearly intentional.

[KamaAina]

285. *Chelsea* Manning was acquitted of aiding the enemy.

So no, not a traitor.

[bvar22]

292. I guess it is a blessing in disguise that...

..only 36 members of DU chose to STAND with the bigoted,
FALSE claims spewed by the OP.

Since Manning was NEVER CHARGED with "Treason",
she is NOT a "Traitor".
This fact has been pointed out to michigandem58 in this thread numerous times,
and he chooses to leave that nasty bit of FALSE information standing.

It is NOT OK to knowingly post false information at DU.
[font size=3]He has had plenty of time to correct his OP,
and remove the patently FALSE declaration,
and has chosen to NOT do so.
I take this seriously.
DU should take this seriously.[/font]

If you are curious exactly WHO stands with the OP and agrees with spreading FALSE information at DU,
just hit the "Thread Info" button at the bottom of this embarrassing Sado-Fantasy for a list of the names that cosigned this shameful manifesto.

--bvar22


You WILL know them by their works.

[joeybee12]

297. More homophobic/transphobic garbage...are those the only sites you work for?

Let me clue you in sweetcheeks, Manning does not SUFFER from anything...got it...so take this shit elsewhere.

[Tarheel_Dem]

302. You're not alone.

[Rex]

305. Like it or Not, I have to accept that you can post here.

nt.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

308. I know -

this troll is so fucking obvious but remains because enough DU jurists are OK with what it posts.

[Jake2413]

306. Sorry

But Manning did this country a great service.