At 4 hours ago, JoS wrote:
No, he did do those things, just because he hasn't been found guilty in a court of law doesn't change whether he did it or not. In the eyes of the law it has been proven he did it, in the eyes of history he has. Just because it hasnt been proven in court does not mean something never happened.
I will concede that it is very likely that Manning is responsible for the leak and that he did do the things that he is accused of doing. HOWEVER, there's this country that Manning is a citizen of, and it's called the United States of America. One of the most fundamental and important ideas that this country's justice system was founded upon is the idea that anyone accused of a crime is to be concidered innocent until and unless he is proven to be guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt, in a court of Law. Nobody may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without this due process of Law.
If you do not agree with this concept, then I would argue that you could rightfully be classified as un-American, and you would perhaps feel more at home in a country such as China, or Thailand.
Read the highlighted portion of the 5th Amendment. As others have pointed out and you continue to ignore, the constitution specifically says this portion does not apply to those in the military while in service. Regardless of your view on the war and its legality this section covers it.
I responded to this very subject in my previous reply to djack, so either you didn't read it, or you do not have the capacity to understand that the section in question does not speak to the right of the military to completely ignore the rest of the constitution as if it was no longer applicable. That section of the 5th Ammendment gives the military the right to try crimes committed by service members while in the service of the armed forces, convict and sentence them, but it does not give the military carte blanche to do whatever they want. They cannot imprison someone indefinitely without a trial, nor are they allowed to inflict cruel and unusual punishment.
If you are of the opposite opinion, that the military does and should have the right to do these things, then may I once again suggest that you relocate to somewhere your opinions are generally more accepted. I hear Burma is lovely around this time of year.
His actions have undermined the ability of diplomats to do their job. Despite what some people believe the public does not have the right or need to know everything. Diplomats should have the ability to speak frankly about situations without fear their comments and observations will be published in the paper.
In the grand scheme of things, a few diplomats being embarrassed over having their trash talk about other world leaders and diplomats exposed ranks as insignificant when compared to some of the more egregious secrets that were unearthed in the leak, including gems such as this one: http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2011/09/12/wikileaks-cable-
But, as you say, the American public doesn't have the right or the need to know about the US looking the other way when minors are being raped.
When you are willing to have all your private comments published for all to read then you can ask the same.
If you are willing to do this I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is by posting your email address and password in here so we can look at your emails.
Don't be silly. If you honestly can't comprehend the difference between a public official, whose duties involve being answerable to the people of the United States, and a private citizen like me, then I believe there is a word for that kind of simplicity.
I you want to know what word it is, go ahead and log onto my email account and read about it. It's [email protected], password is "YOUAREANIDIOT", one word.