Did U.S. troops in 2006 handcuff and execute innocent civilians, including children, in Ishaqi? Unknown.

Did Pfc. Bradley turn over 700,000 classified documents to the Wikileaks website? Yes.

Did some of the classified documents Bradley leaked end up in the hands of Bin Laden? Yes.

I think he'll be convicted of some counts, but probably not aiding the enemy.

errr...Bin Laden was dead by the time Manning leaked the documents, so I doubt they ended up in his hands. The amount of information on American activities, including war crimes in Iraq, links to Iraqi paramilitary groups, video footage of the "collateral damage" bombing, etc are incredibly damning and deserve to be made public. Only an empire in denial of its own shadow side gives medals to war criminals and throws the person who tells us about their actions into solitary confinement.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/06/pentagon-iraqi-torture-centres-link

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11611319

BREAKING: Manning not guilty of aiding the enemy but convicted of multiple counts of violating espionage act

@erist - Bin Laden was killed May 2, 2011. Manning had already been charged for a year before Bin Laden was killed. You should really do a simple Google before asserting false statements and telling someone else they are wrong.

I was relying on an NBC article for my statement about Bin Laden. If that's incorrect, I have no independent knowledge. "Some of the classified documents leaked by Manning ended up in the hands of Osama bin Laden and were recovered in the raid on his compound by U.S. Navy Seals in Abbottabad, Pakistan." http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/30/19771789-bradley-manning-verdict-could-test-notion-of-aiding-enemy?lite

Regarding the two links erist posted, the first one says that the Pentagon funded and oversaw Iraqi detention centers where torture occurred. The second one says that the US ignored torture of Iraqi detainees by Iraqi authorities. Setting aside whether either article is accurate or whether the activities described are legally or morally acceptable, what do either have to do with your original post about U.S. soldiers shooting Ishaqi children in the head?

It seems like the purpose of this thread is to get people riled up and indignant about poor Pfc. Bradley being on trial when all he did was blow the whistle on U.S. soldiers massacring innocents in Ishaqi. So far I have not seen anything in this thread showing anything Bradley did establishes that U.S. soldiers did that.

Fair enough, I was confused on the dates, I still think it is irrelevant whether al Quada had access to wikileaks cables, and evidently the judge largely agrees given that the aiding the enemy charge was thrown out.

My point is that torture, deaths squads, Obama's complicity in covering up war crimes, the killing of journalists, the execution of children are all things that a nation that cares about the rule of law should be prosecuting, but we aren't prosecuting those things. Neither Bush nor Cheney nor Obama will ever see the inside of a jail cell. While we let the people that make their crimes against humanity public rot in solitary confinement. I think my point was evident. If want to pick 17 other revelations that came out of the leaks, then pick 17 other revelations. We jail the truth tellers, not the people that commit the crimes. Evidence of a violent and imperialist empire in deep denial about its own violent nature.

Bradley Manning is a traitor. The reason the panel (court martials are done by military tribunal, not one judge) is because aiding the enemy requires intent. Whether harm was done or not is irrelevant in that finding. Harm may well have been done but if he didn't knowingly put the information in enemy hands or expeft it to get there, he didn't aid the enemy.

Sounds to me like the correct verdict was found and he will rot in military prison for the rest of his days.

The real purpose of the Manning trial is, of course, to intimidate anyone who might release more evidence of illegal wrongdoing by the American government. So while Our Betters can't fix the economy or respect the most basic of human rights, they're still good at that.

Private First Class Manning is just that: A private. We can never hope to maintain a cohesive and combat-effective Army if every private has his or her own agenda. Regardless of whether or not PFC Manning was morally "right" in doing what he did, he's guilty as hell as shattering the chain of command. He claimed to have wanted the American people to know what the government was up to, but that's WAY above his pay grade as a PFC.

guilty as hell *of* shattering the chain of command

Fuck the chain of command. And fuck the baby killers of the US military and the generals that supervise and order them. Manning is a hero as is Snowden and every moral person should recognize their courage and bravery.

The reason they have to come out with this stuff is because there aren't a ton of moral people, erist. And that's why he was convicted of most of the things he was accused of and that's why people argue with you.

Whether the trial was fair or not, I totally commend the feds on making sure it was, as the Constitution says, "speedy" - great job!

"Whether the trial was fair or not, I totally commend the feds on making sure it was, as the Constitution says, "speedy" - great job!"

I hope this is sarcasm.

^
1. To be fair...I don't think "Our Betters" (that is, politicians...though they're not our betters, but then, that's the point, I suppose) CAN fix the economy.

I blame Big Business and personal greed.

The latter can't be stopped, that's just a fact of life...and it fuels the former...so...

I suppose I'm rather cynical and apathetic on the subject.

I don't blame Obama-era Democrats or Republicans for failing to fix what someone else broke...granted some of them were there when it broke and may have been partially responsible, but still, if I hire a contractor to fix a broken sink and he fails...he's a bad contractor, but I still can't hold him accountable for my sink having been broken.

As for human rights...again--I just can't be shocked or offended at the conduct in this country anymore. We built a superpower--what did we think was going to happen, exactly? What always happens with that much power? It's just part of life...

It'll blow over or blow up eventually...and then it'll occur somewhere else, and we'll feign outrage as if this could NEVER happen here...

And then it will again, and we'll be "shocked--shocked, I say--to discover that there is gambling in this establishment!"

2. As for the Manning Trial...haven't followed it...again, I have to be honest--

I'm not even past the point of caring--I'm at a point where I can't meet the bare minimum amount to qualify as caring.

I applied for a job answering phones this morning--an hour later I got a rejection notice.

And so it goes, on and on and on...

Maybe it's a perverse adaptation of Maslow's Pyramid of Needs, a Pyramid of Caring, if you will...

But I simply have a harder time caring about ideas being violated and people flaunting their tautological view points left and right, shouting "Wake Up America!" while NONE of those people (and it's people on all sides shouting that, as if disagreement has suddenly become analogous to slumber...I don't agree with your vision, so I MUST be asleep, doom and gloom, end of the country and Western civilization, they said, with Jazz and then Rock and then Hippies and then Meth and then Crack and then Rap and then Terrorists and then the NSA...give it a few years, you'll be freshly shocked and outraged and giving the same futile, laughable cries all over again) when I can't even find WORK...let alone work that can lead to benefits such as HEALTH INSURANCE.

And I take seizure meds and receive infusions every few months...kinda need that Health Insurance...

So you'll forgive me for not being shocked and outraged at this, or Snowden (I'm again frankly more "shocked and outraged" at the popular support for that schmuck, and why he can't be a schmuck AND a have alerted people to an important issue, but I guess shades of grey don't exist, it's Angel or Demon, but I've officially given up that diatribe, anyway) or the Zimmerman Case--



How about some jobs and better hiring policies for young Americans like me just trying to get going in life first, huh?

@Tolstoy ... yes, it was.

@ erist

"Fuck the chain of command. And fuck the baby killers of the US military and the generals that supervise and order them."

Fuck you. You can either stand behind our military or stand in front of them. The choice is yours but make it.

If a soldier lost it and intentionally killed a civilian, then that soldier should be brought to justice under previously established procedures. It does NOT mean that a PFC like Manning (never served myself but Manning seems like a POG/REMF/fobbit type) can recklessly leak over 700,000 documents to the public. Do you really think that Manning read all 700,000 documents to make sure that nothing potentially harmful was in there? Me neither.

Snowden is another story because he's a civilian and may very well be a legitimate whistle-blower, but Manning doesn't get to be a whistle-blower because he's in uniform. It wasn't his decision.

Erist, you clearly don't respect oaths do you? Manning violated his. Now, there are times when it's okay to break those oaths - disobeying an order to shoot civilians, putting your men unnecessarily at risk. But typically, in those situations it is a sergeant, captain, etc who chooses to disobey - ie. an officer with years of experience, not a scrub PFC.

And wait a second, you think because a group of ten or so US soldiers are suspected of killing a family in Iraq after an hours long firefight in a raid....a raid in which gunships were called in who likely had miniguns which were far, far more likely to kill the family than the soldiers....that the entire 2 million strong body of the US Military is baby killers? There are rouge elements who crack under stress and do fucked up shit, but to call the entire military baby killers? It shows you don't have the foggiest idea about the military or what they do. Go to West Point and learn some respect.

I think Obiwan just captured how 95% of the country feels about this case.

Gunfighter, for real: if the army is killing innocent people and covering it up, you think just because someone is a private, they should not reveal that to the public? What rank do you have to be?

Obi, I am not quite sure what your point is -- if your conditions are bad, then injustice isn't really important? Or if economic policies are bad, then civil liberties don't matter? I'm genuinely asking.

Also, "Our Betters" is a sarcastic description I started using for the political and financial elite when the bank bailouts showed just how little regard they have for the democratic process or the well-being of the non-connected. I don't think the government or big business can fix the economy, although they can certainly tank it.

You guys seemed to think that Manning/Wikileaks showed some piddling misdeeds or a one-time thing. The government or army killed people, had people killed, tortured people, had people tortured, and covered it up time and again. The US government lied about the state of the war in Afghanistan. It pressured democratic and authoritarian allies to help cover up the murder and torture.

@Ckroberts - then reveal that they're killing people and keep the other 699,999 documents private.

Goldfinger, that is the ideal, but it's not always possible to do the ideal thing. Besides, didn't Manning release to Wikileaks, who would then carefully look through the information and release it?

It is interesting that people are so much more upset about the guy doing the leaking than about, I don't know, the CIA training Egyptian torturers or the government covering up thousands of civilian deaths.

People should be upset about both. I'm upset that it happened in the first place and I'm upset that a whistleblower had to be the one to make it known. Once again, government fails to own up to their mistakes and instead twists the blame unto someone else.

"the CIA training Egyptian torturers or the government covering up thousands of civilian deaths."

Don't forget State Department contractors selling children into sex slavery.

"Obi, I am not quite sure what your point is -- if your conditions are bad, then injustice isn't really important? Or if economic policies are bad, then civil liberties don't matter? I'm genuinely asking."

What does it matter who's in charge or what principles are being violated when, regardless, you're still out of work either because the Black Hole of Youth Hiring has seized you or some greedy bastards gambled, lost, were bailed out and YOU lost your job and livelihood because of it?

Yes, that is what I'm saying--

Civil liberties don't come into play if you can't even support yourself.

What should you care if you're told "All men are created equal" or that we all have a right to "Freedom of Speech" when people aren't TREATED equally anyway, when some get a free ride or a bailout and others get a ticket to the unemployment office and passed over in applications despite better qualifications because John Wellington III's daddy has a connection with the hiring manager?

I might specialize in teaching Shakespeare and ESL students, and John Wellington III might have trouble going two sentences or ten words without a typo or a logical failing or not even be able to spell "sonnet"...

But guess who's getting the job?
And what about the other jobs folks my age would normally get?
Older folks are out of work too, so that's more jobs gone...
Experience beats a young upstart 9 times out of 10...

So why should I care if Obama's sending drones or my right to Freedom of Speech is being cut away from me bit by bit...

The most basic freedom is "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Liberty's only 1/3 of that.
And "Life" comes first.

And THAT requires either a free ride for life, Royal Baby-style...OR A JOB.

I quote Shakespeare quite a bit (and that's an understatement, I know.)
And a lot of folks treat Shakespeare as if he was some lofty, poetic idealist.
And in some respects, that fits.
But on the whole...Shakespeare was a realist...

Shaw was right when he called him a pessimist at heart.

Shakespeare shows time and again--

Nice titles and fancy words may be all well and good...
To consider the meaning of life and death and love and jealousy is worthwhile...
But for all of that...
The basics of human existence ALWAYS come first.

The man was a glovemaker's son--so he knew that. He wasn't poor, but he knew that.
The Founders realized that.
A LOT of people stayed home on the farm during the Revolution...
Because who cares whether it's George III or George Washington in charge if you can't sell your crops and make a living?

Who cares about the Enlightenment ideals of Monarchy vs. Republicanism when you have the more concrete and immediate issue of needing to feed and clothe yourself?

Will the man in charge really change that?

Probably not too much, not usually--we can argue Thomas Paine vs. Thomas Jefferson vs. The Boston Tea Party vs. The Constitutional Convention as to when and with whom America as a political entity begins in proper...

But arguably it was things like the Sugar and Stamp Act that made the difference.

High-minded ideals are one thing--unfairly tax a man and make his economic situation even the teeniest bit more inconvenient, and suddenly you'll find a LOT more men being A LOT more motivated to take action of some kind.

Same with France...ideals are all well and good, but it doesn't become a Revolution until the economy tanks even worse and Marie and Louis become even more opulent...

The same can be said about Russia and their Revolution...about most modern dramatic power changes we remember--

Who would have listened to Thomas Paine without those acts of taxation?
Who would have listened to Robespierre without the crippling food shortages?
Who would have listened to Lenin if Russia HAD plenty of free Peace, Land and Bread?
Who would have listened to Hitler if Germany HAD a prosperous economic future already?
And so on and so on and so on--

Ideas don't matter without the barest of necessities...which is why, despite my liberal leanings, I ALWAYS go back to Hobbes, as I always have here--

Man is a desire-pursuing machine, He needs to be fed and fed well...
And THAT is what he cares about first.
Ideas of Liberty? That can wait.
The concept of a Government or Sovereign? That's just a means to an end, to being fed.



You can't read Shakespeare OR The Bill of Rights with no food and with no money for a copy.
"Hamlet" and our Constitution mean nothing if people don't have the energy to make Shakespeare's words live on or the economic power to make that Constitution count for something.

So I DON'T care about Manning, Snowden, or any of it--

Not because those issues aren't important...but because they're important in the same way third base is vitally important if you're going to try and score a run...

But to score a run, you have to somehow first GET ON BASE. You have to GET STARTED.

So until I do, or until I can...why should I care if the game is rigged?

I can't even get a turn at bat!

Obi, for goodness sake, please inform me how Bradley Manning's leaking of these documents threatens your life. Snowden too. That's evidently your logic.

So, Obi, if it were 1954 and the civil rights movement was ongoing, you would think it unimportant given the fact that economic conditions where you lived were bad? If the USA was locking up Japanese civilians during WWII, you wouldn't care until the job market improved? Matthew Shepard was tortured to death in (checking) 1998. The economy was pretty good in 1998, so I guess it bothered you, but it wouldn't have last month?

Or to put it another way: No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.