Bradley Manning Charged With Aiding the Enemy 844
Hugh Pickens writes writes "The Washington Post reports that the army has brought twenty-two new charges — including the Article 104 offence of 'aiding the enemy' that carries a potential death sentence — against Pfc. Bradley E. Manning, a former intelligence analyst accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of classified military and diplomatic documents to the anti-secrecy Web site WikiLeaks. The new charges, filed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, include wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the Internet, knowing that it will be accessed by the enemy, that US officials have asserted could put soldiers and civilians at risk. However the prosecution has notified Manning's attorneys that it will not recommend the death penalty and the charge sheet, like the original set of accusations, contains no mention by name of the enemy to which the US military is referring. Manning's supporters reacted to the new charges with dismay. 'I'm shocked that the military opted to charge Pfc. Bradley Manning today with the capital offense of 'aiding the enemy,' says Jeff Paterson, project director of Courage to Resist, which has raised money for Manning's defense. 'It's beyond ironic that leaked US State Department cables have contributed to revolution and revolt in the Middle East, yet an American may be executed, or at best face life in prison, for being the primary whistleblower.'"
Aiding the enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
That "enemy" being the American people.
And who, exactly, is the enemy? (Score:5, Insightful)
It'll be interesting to watch the prosecution try to weasel out of this simple question.
Re:Good. He's a fucking traitor and a disgrace (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, because US people are way more important and deserve to be alive. The rest of us are less important and our lives are disposable.
Re:Good. He's a fucking traitor and a disgrace (Score:5, Insightful)
And his disclosures to wikileaks are arguably responsible for triggering the revolution in Tunisia, which set off Egypt and Libya. Maybe he should get a peace prize before you go and kill him.
Re:Good. He's a fucking traitor and a disgrace (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty sure that the GUY WHO SET HIMSELF ON FIRE was the catalyst for the revolution in Tunisia.
Re:No sympathy here, sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
The law also forced Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus because of her skin color. Some laws are immoral and need to be broken for the greater good.
Re:And who, exactly, is the enemy? (Score:5, Insightful)
The public of course.
The American public are the greatest threat to the rest of the US doing whatever the hell they want.
Re:No sympathy here, sorry (Score:4, Insightful)
He did the crime, and he's going to do the time.
What, no presumption of innocence? No due process? We've made so much progress!
Re:No sympathy here, sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No sympathy here, sorry (Score:3, Insightful)
Jesus, get out of my country. (Briton here)
People like you are what gives retards in power the power they have.
Not only will he not get his arse kicked, he is likely going to be killed because America are embarrassed that such secrets got out to "the enemy" and want to make an example of him.
I bet you'd probably cover for cops abusive powers as well.
You are one sad example of a human. I hope you aren't in a position of power.
Re:No sympathy here, sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
2) disagreeing with a law morally entitles somebody to break it.
That is ridiculous. Ever read "Civil Disobedience"? Few would argue the American revolution wasnt a moral case of breaking laws, or that the civil rights movement wasnt a moral case of breaking the laws. I can think of several laws off the top of my head that should be broken regularly if it suites a person. Marijuana use, prostitution, and buying alcohol on Sundays.
Re:No sympathy here, sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
The People.
Ask an Egyptian
Ask a Tunisian.
Ask someone who marched in Selma.
Re:The right charges (Score:5, Insightful)
Indoctrination (Score:2, Insightful)
It's amazing that even after so much corruption in government has been exposed, the common man simply brushes it off and reverts to blindly trusting authority. If that doesn't illustrate the power of indoctrination, I don't know what does.
Re:No sympathy here, sorry (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is all the wrongdoing that has been shielded this way. When someone is the witness of so much abuse, it is a civic behaviour to violate secrecy agreement and divulgate all the wrong doing.
This is a risky behaviour, but in this case, it was heroic. Governmental agencies shall be warned that secrecy shall not be used for hiding wrongdoing. They shall have ethic and behave well, otherwise they will lose all secrecy.
Bradley E. Manning deserves a reward for his good action.
Re:No sympathy here, sorry (Score:3, Insightful)
Rules are made for a reason.
Yes - but the fact that a rule exists doesn't make it a good rule or correct to use in every situation. How would you like a rule that had a dealth penalty for posting dumb comments?
This is reasonable (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow, a lot of dumb posts for this article. I'm not a lawyer of military justice, but releasing sensitive classified documents onto the internet is certainly, in layman's vernacular, "aiding the enemy". We are currently fighting two actual declared hot wars, and we have enemies in each of those, and in each of those the enemies gained operable knowledge they otherwise wouldn't have. How is that NOT aiding the enemy?
To me it is a plain case of treason and capital punishment seems reasonable, but a life sentence could also be reasonable if the prosecution is feeling generous.
A stain on my country's tattered honor (Score:5, Insightful)
A mere forty years ago a great whistleblower did his work and risked all, but did not get placed in brutal imprisonment and danger of death for putting his country's moral character to a test, and even a corrupt President would voluntarily resign upon the revelation of his lawbreaking. I speak of course of Danny Ellsberg and President Nixon.
Anyone who could become privy to what Pvt. Manning did, that is that the USA conducts thinly veiled torture with electric shock, waterboarding, psychological torture, and that it renditions prisoners to regimes like the recently deposed one in Egypt which engage in blatant torture including drills,
anyone who could see that this is a blatant exercise of power meant to subdue the disadvantaged of the world and mold the economics to the advantage of America's elite to the detriment of everyone else, including future generations,
anyone who could see the brutality of willful shoot-ups of civilians and journalists by snickering, racist Apache gunship crews,
anyone who could see the contravention of international law and agreements we are assigned to and to which our national honor is affixed by deliberate scheming,
anyone who could see that the nature of our government's policies is hidden, distorted, or misrepresented to its constituents
and hold their peace, working in silent assent to atrocities, and not speak out, would have been convicted at Nuremberg, would have made themselves directly share responsibility for monstrous crimes, and would be no guardian of liberty or law, but a tool to those who corrupt both. If the letter of the law is all that is right and Bradley Manning is a criminal for blowing the whistle on the corrupt exercise of power, then everyone who signed the American Declaration of Independence ought to have hung too, and apologies are due for this nation's existence altogether with its rights and wrongs, and a ridiculous and futile exercise - thus the powers that would have Manning punished are discredited.
They who would sacrifice essential freedom for a little security will gain neither, and lose both, quoth Ben Franklin.
They who would sacrifice basic humanity and law for obedience to tyrants are heirs to tyranny and the stain that brings, and none of the things that have ever made this country worth fighting for. We'll need more people like Manning to get our country back from the plutocrats and propaganda that have already plundered its wealth for their wars.
Re:aiding the enemy (Score:2, Insightful)
People like you are why the rest of the world hates the US.
Starting unlawful wars, stealing, lying, murdering, even your own citizens are targets if they 'deflect' by telling broadcasting the horrific truth.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself and your justice system. You choose to ignore all that makes you Human.
Sorry, the cables aren't the reason for revolution (Score:3, Insightful)
unless your smoking the same stuff which Krugman of the NYT is because he claims its because Obama is President and our audacity and courage to elect him empowered the people of the Middle East to revolt.
As for aiding the enemy, well, pick one. I am sure we can make one up if we need it. There were certainly documents and such that put the lives of many soldiers and civilians in danger but I understand how quickly many here dismiss them. Its far better to portray it as Us vs The Man even though half the place is willing to hand over all rights and money provided they think someone else gets the shaft.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
The real defenders of a society are the people who are not afraid to stand against the ones that stain, lie, cheat and ultimately disgrace said society. Especially when their actions run against the will of the powerful or the law (which defends first and foremost the powerful).
Look into your own history - you greatest heroes were "terrorists". Jesus was terrorist too (to the Jewish priests). In the history of my people our greatest heroes were rebels and "terrorists". Hanged for treason and helping the enemy....
Re:Aiding the enemy (Score:1, Insightful)
As an American, I can't really see how I've been aided by Manning's actions.
Re:And who, exactly, is the enemy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which God?
The Christian god, because it was added to the pledge in 1948 as part of the rampant anti-communism rhetoric. Real patriots should skip this part of the pledge, because it violates the Constitution.
Re:No sympathy here, sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask a KKK member in the 30s.
Oh, wait...
The absolute rule of majority is not democracy. It's tyranny. If popular support was everything needed to break laws you can call most populist South American dictators as heroes.
I'm a Brazilian. Brazil is an interesting country. In the 1700s Brazil had a very fast growth epoch, enough the scare Lisbon. Lisbon decreed a 20% tax on mining profits, a ban on all manufacturing industries and the use of military force to collect taxes, if needed (the derrama). A few bored intellectuals started an independence movement - but the population overall just supported the Portuguese Crown, being Catholics and the divine theory of the right of Kings. When the Portuguese discovered the movement they chose a scape goat, hang him, chopped him in little pieces and scattered him between Rio de Janeiro and Minas Gerais - like between New York to Boston.
The same population that then supported the Crown also supported the Vargas dictatorship in the 30s. The Vagas dictatorship started displaced the democratic (although elitist) government that ruled the country from 1889 to 1930s. After the Vagas dictatorship the country would only live a very troubled democracy between 1945 to 1964 - but with strong military interventions. The democracy has only been restored in the late 80s, after a lot of blood been spilled.
Popular support is a component of democracy but it's not enough to decide the fairness of laws.
Re:No sympathy here, sorry (Score:4, Insightful)
But isn't that exactly the point - that the USA should not be stealing credit card numbers from visiting dignitaries in the first place? And this release of information will help prevent this sort of immoral thing from happening in the future.
Re:Good! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No sympathy here, sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
Promotes actual democracy in Middle East (Score:5, Insightful)
Manning is accused of creating pretty much all major US military leaks published in 2010. Within months of these leaks which focus on the Middle East to a great part, a cascade of popular revolts sweeps through most Middle Eastern nations.
Naturally, the promotion of actual democracy in these nations threatens the strategic position of the US as the sole bringer of Iraq-style "freedom". It's hard to force a regime change in democratic countries (well, the US did that during the cold war, but that was before the internet). Freedom in the Middle East is the enemy. Manning and Wikileaks aid the enemy.
Re:Whatever he is, it isn't a whistleblower (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not going to comment on whether he was in the right or wrong.
2) Got very angry at having to be a closet homosexual, even though the military is generally not interested in punishing people who are "discrete homosexuals."
You're an idiot. They punish "indiscreet" homosexuals, but not "indescreet" hetrosexuals. It would be entirely fine and fair if they punished soldier who brought their wife/husband along to some event for being indiscreetly hetrosexusal. But they don't so they're still wildly biased. Do not try to spin this policy as in any way reasonable.
no unethical behavior,
. It was indiscriminate in a "you screwed with me, so I'll screw you right back" way.
So? Just because he didn't have the right motivation didn't mean that he didn't reveal whole heaps of unethical behavior. I can tell you're very much biased because you're trying to use unrelated facts (his motivation) to discredit other facts (the leaked material).
You're being as emotional as the "nutjob dupporters" you so vigorously decry.
Re:Good. He's a fucking traitor and a disgrace (Score:2, Insightful)
"Lets just hand out free medical care! The Canadians do it! We're letting people die in the street!"
As a Canadian, yes we do, it works very well, and we laugh at your stupidity when you fight against it. Its just one more thing that makes us shake our heads and say "dumb redneck americans have no idea whats good for them"
Re:Good. He's a fucking traitor and a disgrace (Score:2, Insightful)
Talking points straight out of Glenn Beck's ass. I hope you're being sarcastic, because it feels like I'm feeding a troll.
Re:Military Law != Civilian Law (Score:5, Insightful)
He will receive a fair trial through Courts Martial, and may be found guilty or not. .
mod this post up +1 funny!
Re:No sympathy here, sorry (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>Contacting JAG
Which means revealing classified information to the JAG ("I found documents that say...."), so Manning would still be in jail. Your solution is a non-solution.
This is the danger Eisenhower warned us about - an industrial-military that is unaccountable for its constitutional violations.
Actions = consequences (Score:2, Insightful)
If he felt that his action was morally necessary, he must accept the potential consequences.
Truly gross amounts of information that should be in the public domain are classified by the US gov't. Some of us are working to change that system. Going 'vigilante' and deciding to release that information yourself (and let's assume he did it for moral reasons, and not primarily attention-whoring), well, you play the game and take your chances.
I know if I or someone I knew was put in danger by their names being leaked, I'd want the death penalty, too.
I'd be curious how many of his "free information!" supporters were faux-outraged by the 'leaking' of Valerie Plame's former covert status? (ie motivated primarily by politics, not ethics)
Re:Sorry, the cables aren't the reason for revolut (Score:5, Insightful)
The cables weren't the reason, but they *were* the catalyst.
The unrest started in Tunisia as protests against the ruler's immediate family who were making out like bandits. The corruption had long been known about (it wasnt subtle) but the spark was the wikileaks release which showed a bunch of cables from US embassy in Tunisia that detailed the corruption. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/02/wikileaks-exclusive-book-extract [guardian.co.uk]
The government responded by shutting down wikileaks access which resulted in Anonymous group taking action against official Tunisian government sites and defacing them (with the same cables, amongst other things) which also had a pronounced and under reported effect on people's urge to actually protest.
So, Bradley Manning has probably done more to unleash the wave of democratization hitting north Africa than any other single individual. That doesn't make what he did legal but if everyone stuck to what was legal, we would all be living as serfs to feudal barons.
Re:A stain on my country's tattered honor (Score:3, Insightful)
anyone who could see the brutality of willful shoot-ups of civilians and journalists by snickering, racist Apache gunship crews,
As someone who works closely with the Apache community, I think you are a bit mistaken. First of all, those journalists were issued vests to mark them as non-combatants that they were not wearing. Secondly, they were with armed Iraqis. Third, their cameras look a lot like weapons at first glance. You have the luxury of hindsight. They did not. They followed their rules of engagement and yes, some innocent people died. People die in wars, unfortunately. But to call these pilots brutal, and murders is just not appropriate. They were doing their duty. If you look back at history, you'll see that in WWI and WWII troops were taught to "hate" their enemies. This is less about racism and more to do with the fact that killing a human being is not easy for most individuals. Those two pilots will have to live with their conscience, and the judgment of the world for the rest of their lives.
Unless you watched the entire unedited clip, you saw an editorialized, and biased view of that encounter.
Re:This is reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
Posts like this, however "insightful" they are deemed to be, are part of the reason the US of A is no longer quite so globally revered as it was in, say, post WWII europe. The "knowledge" the "enemy" gained was knowledge of things that already happened. Not secretive military strategy documents, but evidence of clear breaches of the rules of engagement, the murder of civilians, which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has said is the right of every American citizen to know.
Its easy to sit in front of your PC munching doritos, calling everybody else dumb, and classifying the potential execution of a person who tried to do what he felt was the right thing as "reasonable" and a potential life sentence "generous", knowing that your oh-so-distant removal from the situation means you can just browse on to the next slashdot article and forget about everything in a few minutes.
Re:Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
It might be the right thing to not follow order sometimes, at least when you're asked to do something morally wrong such as killing innocent citizens. Was this the nature of Manning's refusal to follow orders? In any case, if you don't follow orders, you should be prepared to suffer the consequences, even if not following orders was the right thing to do.
Manning is suffering consequences.
Furthermore, where do you draw the distinction between murder, killing, and letting others die? The leaked information, especially the helicopter video, has led to increased scrutiny concerning how the U.S. is conducting itself in these military operations. I would argue that this has saved innocent lives. If one has the opportunity to save innocent lives and does not, how is that different from killing? If someone is drowning and you, a capable swimmer, doesn't attempt to rescue them because you don't want to get wet, have you not just killed them? Or, worse, have you not just murdered them?
Another example: If you're driving drunk (and to keep you, in this example, on morally safe ground, you're only a tad bit over the legal limit after consuming three beers) on a lone country road and come across a car wrecked into a pole. The driver is seriously injured and dying. Staying will result in a drunk driving charge, fleeing will result in the other driver's death. You could just call 911 and leave, but the victim needs immediate first aid services which you can provide. Sometimes doing the right thing has consequences.
As a person, when morality conflicts with legality, morality always wins. The severity of the legal/moral issue doesn't matter. You can't just say, "Well, legality trumps morality until they tell you to start rounding up Jews and systematically killing them." When you say legality trumps morality up to a certain point at which morality takes precedence, then you open the door for that certain point to be arbitrary, debatable, and ultimately meaningless. Ethics always trump the legal system.
I think Manning was ready to face the consequences and is facing them now. But just because he should be ready to face the consequences doesn't mean he should actually be punished. Is China right in their punishment of Liu Xiaobo? He broke the law, after all. Or does he deserve his punishment because he knew the risks he was taking by voicing dissent?
It's just sad that Obama hasn't pardoned Manning. I give Obama a free pass on that one until he gets reelected. It could be political suicide. But once the second term comes around he will have no excuse.
I'll tell you who deserves to be punished: that filthy rat Adrian Lamo. Why Anonymous hasn't gone after his head is beyond me.
Re:No sympathy here, sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
And the founders of the US were all traitors to the crown of England. What are you saying?
Even in the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) the notion of conscience is recognized in the course of the execution of one's duty. If a service member is witness to criminal actions by his superiors, he is compelled by duty, honor and conscience to report it.
Are the actions of the US Military and Department of State criminal? Some would say so. And do you think it is "appropriate" for diplomats to also serve as spies? Not only is this simply "wrong" it is quite probably also illegal under international rules and law.
What Manning did was most likely driven by a sense of righteousness and justice. Would I have the courage to act similarly in the same situation? I can say that I would be tempted to but I doubt I would have the balls to carry it out. Manning deserves our admiration for his courage and conviction. He knew he was laying his life on the line and that it would create international news and awareness. He did it anyway. Think on that. This is no "ego trip." This goes way beyond ego.
Re:This is reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No sympathy here, sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Observation on moderating this thread (Score:5, Insightful)
I note that opinions expressed in support of the charge are marked as trolls, while opinions expressed in opposition to the charge are modded up.
Good.
Perhaps if there were actually some good arguments for punishing Manning, they wouldn't be marked as troll. "Hang the bastard" and "he got what he deserves" aren't arguments, they're ignorant and inflammatory claims.
Re:Declared wars? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be retarded. Just because it's not officially a declaration of war doesn't mean it isn't a war. In fact, the US Congress has approved what is effectively a war on several occasions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
Re:This is reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
releasing sensitive classified documents onto the internet is certainly, in layman's vernacular, "aiding the enemy"
It amazes this layman to learn from you that I would naturally use the phrase "aiding the enemy" to refer to any release of sensitive classified documents. You argue that when the US is at war, there is an enemy, and any violation of US official secrets acts could aid that enemy, and thus does constitute "aiding the enemy". But since the policy of the US's ruling elite is to be perpetually engaged in undeclared or semi-declared (i.e., funded) wars, there is always an enemy. If you are right, then what an added benefit redounds to those rulers from their policy of perpetual warfare! Not only can they abuse the classification system to protect themselves from embarrassment, but they can execute any military official secrets violator.
Re:This is reasonable (Score:3, Insightful)
They voted to fund it, that's plenty enough for them to share responsibility.
That's right, kids... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you engage in an illegal war, invade a couple of countries, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, break US law, violate the constitution, and completely ignore international law, including the Geneva convention treaties put in place after the atrocities of WWII, and you THEN proceed to cover it all up, there's nothing wrong with what you're doing, and you are even considered heroic and patriotic, and nothing happens to you except maybe getting more funding.
However, if you BLAB about it and release documents that PROVE it, THEN you're a horrible, horrible person who needs to die.
God, the people in this country are fucking stupid.
Re:Military Law != Civilian Law (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that some of the materials he leaked clearly indicate war crimes committed by our service personnel. I realize that it's popular to pretend like it doesn't happen and that it was just a few people at abu Ghraib that were the problem, but the reality is that it's infected the chain of command, and there was no interest in investigating how it is that these crimes against humanity were committed without any intervention by the CO. In that case they only prosecuted a few low level personnel, but never the people giving the orders. That helicopter incident from a while back is a good example, it was definitely something which should have been investigated as it was quite questionable as to whether or not that was really within the relevant rules of engagement at the time.
In Nuremberg we prosecuted a lot of Nazis for following orders, it is a pox on our nation that we've decided that all of a sudden following orders is a good enough justification for looking the other way or participating in war crimes.
Re:And who, exactly, is the enemy? (Score:5, Insightful)
The American public are the greatest threat to the US military and intelligence agencies doing whatever the hell they want.
I think that would be a bit more clear what you mean.
My suspicion (although I obviously can't prove it) is that the career spooks in the DIA, CIA, and FBI more-or-less make stuff up when they present what they're doing to the politicians with the goals of increasing their budget and avoiding any and all real oversight, and making it clear to the politicians that all information they receive from the intelligence agencies is classified. They come to the civilian leadership occasionally to ask about stuff that doesn't really matter to them, to make the civilians feel like they're in charge. And they bury everything in secrecy to prevent the public or inspector generals or anyone else from seeing what they're up to. There have been occasional instances of the civilians learning about some illegal program and shutting it down, which lends some credibility to my theory.
That's because... (Score:2, Insightful)
That's because the "enemy" the government is referring to is the public. They obviously can't admit that in a court filing.
Re:No sympathy here, sorry (Score:4, Insightful)
Its easy to say things in hindsight, especially when you aren't familiar with how such sitituations work. There was an investigation and it was found to be an accident. And really, when you think about it clinically its easy to see why it happened:
1.) Unknown vehicle comes in during an engagement. The enemy is known to use civilian equipment.
2.) The helicopter crew isn't able to stare closely into their cameras for an extended period of time like you are post facto; the images aren't all that clear especially if you watch it through in full the first time.
3.) With adrenalin flowing and their training kicking in they respond to a potential threat to their lives accordingly.
Accidents happen in war. Tensions are high, everyone is scared, and with guerrilla/insurgency warfare you don't KNOW who the enemy is since they look like everyone else. After you lose a few friends to "civilians" who were really guerrillas, its easy to either A) start hating the civilians (see some of the atrocities in Vietnam) or B) be jumpy/trigger happy when its you and your buddy's life on the line.
It is really easy to sit safe in your home, watch a video clip over and over 50 times, and then make commentary of how "wrong" someone's behavior was. You weren't there. You weren't feeling the fear, anxiety, excitement... You don't know what its like to have your days filled with boredom, just wishing you could go back to the World, when suddenly you are pulled into an incredibly tense and frightening situation. You don't know how you'll react after you've been trained so that when your mind shuts down you will hopefully still do what needs to be done.
This is Slashdot. There are comments every day about people making emotional judgements about situations, and how that is wrong. How people should use logic, and try to figure out every possible factor and then work out what the best solution is. Maybe you should try that, the old "put your self in their shoes" method, before rushing to conclusions like the "sheeple" you so profess to hate.
Re:Sorry, the cables aren't the reason for revolut (Score:5, Insightful)
There were certainly documents and such that put the lives of many soldiers and civilians in danger but I understand how quickly many here dismiss them
Got a decent fer'instance? Even one single solitary document containing even one fact that you can demonstrate might have even theoretically endangered a single life?
Seems nobody else has managed that challenge yet. There were one or 2 half hearted attempts months ago, but the best they could do was documents showing where troops were many months before the release. They couldn't seem to find any cases where the troops were still where the documents said they were.
So there it is, show us here a single solitary instance where even one life might reasonably be believed to be endangered and we'll all quit dismissing the endangerment argument so easily.
Re:No sympathy here, sorry (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>Contacting JAG
Which means revealing classified information to the JAG ("I found documents that say...."), so Manning would still be in jail.
You've never been in the military or you would know that your answer is incorrect. If indeed Manning had felt there was some moral issue involved, a violation of law or orders, the proper place to take that complaint would be the local offices of the Judge Advocate General (JAG) or the Inspector General (IG). They are expected to deal with evidence which may be classified in nature. WikiLeaks is not part of that solution.
And for those who are eager to elevate Manning as responsible for rebellion around the globe, while I strongly debate whether he had anything to do with that, you have to be prepared to also lay at his feet partial responsibility for the deaths of civilians caught in the crossfire between factions.
Re:Aiding the enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
As an American, I can say I find it useful when the walls public and private information are torn down briefly so we can see what things the government are spinning, hiding, or just plain lying about. A free and democratic government should be open and transparent. There are of course things that should be hidden and kept secret, the diplomatic cables for example, but our government under bush and obama and the over hyped terror boogieman have pull way too much a cloak of national security. As a participant in the American democratic system, I see plenty of benefit to Manning's actions and I wish this type of thing would happen more often.
There are of course many many things I don't want to see leaked, such as military secrets, military assets, etc, but so far I haven't seen any harm from Manning's actions and I've seen lots of benefit. Perhaps we will learn of the harm later and I'll change my mind on the whole issue, but right now I only see the benefit. The benefit however is that it allows us to better understand the difference between the face our government shows the public and what it says behind the scenes, it allows us to see the true status of the war in Afghanistan, and it allows us to see better what's really happening in other countries (through the diplomatic cables). Some of that information is just interesting, while some of it is very important if you want a government that is controlled by the people rather than a population that is controlled by the government.
d
Re:Aiding the enemy (Score:3, Insightful)
This guy knew the rules, he knew the laws, and he willfully violated them. Whatever punishment he gets he earned. Classified information is just that, and isn't subject to challenge
Re:A stain on my country's tattered honor (Score:2, Insightful)
They murdered those people. They did so with a cowardly disregard and a wilful neglect of their duty. The US military then covered up their crimes. Anyone who waves away their actions or the subsequent cover-up with the type of bullshit you've just used is not only an apologist, but a damn accessory after the fact. Shame on you.