Be a Supporter!

Bradley Manning Nobel Prize

  • 1,894 Views
  • 51 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
JoS
JoS
  • Member since: Aug. 11, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Feb. 27th, 2012 @ 04:33 PM Reply

So Bradley Manning has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, along with about 230 other people. I think its absurd that a.) there are always so many people nominated and some of the reasons for it are pretty weak and b.) that someone who committed treason and espionage is nominated.

It would be one thing if Bradley Manning was exposing corruption or some dastardly deed, but in reality he exposed things we already know, that war is unpleasant and that diplomats gossip like regular people do. for this we nominate him for a Nobel? This is even worse than when Gore and Obama won their prizes. The Nobel Peace Prize is for contributions to world peace, making a documentary on global warming or being the first half black president of the US are not things that should win you a prize.


Bellum omnium contra omnes

BBS Signature
orangebomb
orangebomb
  • Member since: Mar. 18, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 19
Gamer
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Feb. 28th, 2012 @ 12:22 AM Reply

The Nobel Prize is basically nothing more than a joke, and it's sad that it has gotten this way, considering the main mission of the Nobel Peace Prize is pretty self-explanatory, it was made for the advancement of world peace. People like MLK or Gandhi would naturally fit the bill for a Nobel candidate, not a random whistle-blower who tattled against the government for bullshit reasons.

I don't really expect that Manning will win the award anyways, but even then, I've pretty much lost all faith in awards like this especially when some hack who spewed out what the rest of us already know, and for being a treasonous, spineless bastard.


Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.

BBS Signature
Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Feb. 28th, 2012 @ 12:38 AM Reply

The real Irony is that the Nobel Prizes were named after the man who invented dynamite.


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Feb. 28th, 2012 @ 12:45 AM Reply

he dosn't even deserve the honor of getting nomination. he is a coward and has betrayed his country by leaking intelligence to whistleblower sites.

lapis
lapis
  • Member since: Aug. 11, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 26
Blank Slate
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Feb. 28th, 2012 @ 05:38 AM Reply

Since everyone here seems to be negative, allow me to defend it: the reason wars today are so much less dirty than in the past is to a large part thanks to the increased journalistic scrutiny that people in the military have to deal with. If I don't know that my country's peacekeepers in, say, the Congo are responding to local uprisings with mass executions and indiscriminate bombardments of villages, then I can't hold the politicians who are ultimately responsbile for their actions accountable. In that case, generals have no incentive not to commit war crimes apart from their own moral compass --- if information comes out after 50 years barely anyone cares anymore. Hence, it is not illogical that the first steps that a society takes towards totalitarianism involve curtailing the free press.

What Manning might have achieved is reminding generals and politicians that they may be held accountable even for actions that remain classified. Since they will be less eager to start wars, there will be more peace, hence the Peace Prize. I understand that what Manning leaked wasn't the hottest stuff around, but he's more than a random whistle-blower. Then again, the one who should get this years's Nobel Peace Prize is, of course, Julian Assange. I can't find if he's been nominated, though, apparently the nomination committee only leaks (lol pun) the names of a few nomiess but keeps the entire list secret.


BBS Signature
Ericho
Ericho
  • Member since: Sep. 21, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Movie Buff
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Feb. 28th, 2012 @ 10:56 AM Reply

At 10 hours ago, orangebomb wrote: The Nobel Prize is basically nothing more than a joke, and it's sad that it has gotten this way

The even sadder thing is that other stuff like the Oscars are still more dignified than it, because they're based more on what more people think than the Nobel Prizes (in Peace or whatever). BTW, Alfred Nobel created the Nobel Prize because he was guiltridden over having invented dynamite.


You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Feb. 28th, 2012 @ 03:21 PM Reply

At 9 hours ago, lapis wrote: Since everyone here seems to be negative, allow me to defend it: the reason wars today are so much less dirty than in the past is to a large part thanks to the increased journalistic scrutiny that people in the military have to deal with.

You mean "US and Israeli wars," right? Journalistic scrutiny would be great if it applied to every combatant equally, but it really only affects the US and Israel (and to a lesser extent, Europe). It makes us all feel good about ourselves while we're losing wars.

What Manning might have achieved is reminding generals and politicians that they may be held accountable even for actions that remain classified. Since they will be less eager to start wars, there will be more peace, hence the Peace Prize. Peace is not something to be maintained at all costs. Sometimes wars are necessary, and people like Manning get in the way of that.

A bad peace is even worse than war, or so the loading screens on Rome: Total War say.

Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Feb. 28th, 2012 @ 03:39 PM Reply

At 22 hours ago, JoS wrote: someone who ALLEGEDLY committed treason and espionage is nominated.

Fixed that for you. Bradley Manning hasn't actually been tried and convicted of anything yet. He has, however, been detained without bail, without trial, largely in isolation, for close to two years now.

5th Ammendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

6th Ammendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

8th Ammendment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Feb. 28th, 2012 @ 04:03 PM Reply

At 22 minutes ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: 5th Ammendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia,

Sorry bud. Time to read the Constitution.

lapis
lapis
  • Member since: Aug. 11, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 26
Blank Slate
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Feb. 28th, 2012 @ 04:32 PM Reply

At 59 minutes ago, adrshepard wrote: You mean "US and Israeli wars," right?

I think a week ago two journalists died in the shelling of Homs. The resulting press coverage encourages voters to approve of their politicians taking action against Syria. Had no journalist been able to enter Homs, the same way no journalist is effectively allowed entry into volatile regions in China such as Tibet or Xinjiang whenever there's trouble, the bombardments would have much sooner faded into obscurity. The same principle applies there too, although, naturally, voters care most about the perceived misdeeds of their own countrymen. You can see that as a reason to restrict press freedom in Western countries, but it would be even better to see this as a reason to encourage press freedom in (semi-)totalitarian countries.

Peace is not something to be maintained at all costs. Sometimes wars are necessary, and people like Manning get in the way of that.

Right, but that's not what this prize is about. You want to award people who start necessary wars, you should institute a Nobel War Prize. What I care about is whether Manning's nomination is justified.


BBS Signature
Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Feb. 28th, 2012 @ 04:34 PM Reply

At 31 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote:
At 22 minutes ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: 5th Ammendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia,
Sorry bud. Time to read the Constitution.

Alright, I got a hard copy right here in front of me, what am I looking for?


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Feb. 28th, 2012 @ 05:13 PM Reply

At 5 minutes ago, Angry-Hatter wrote:
At 31 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote:
At 22 minutes ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: 5th Ammendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia,
Sorry bud. Time to read the Constitution.
Alright, I got a hard copy right here in front of me, what am I looking for?

The part he highlighted, dumbass. Bradly Manning is a military officer, he can be treated however the government wants to treat him because he gave up certain rights when he agreed to enter the military.

At 11 hours ago, lapis wrote: Since everyone here seems to be negative, allow me to defend it: the reason wars today are so much less dirty than in the past is to a large part thanks to the increased journalistic scrutiny that people in the military have to deal with. If I don't know that my country's peacekeepers in, say, the Congo are responding to local uprisings with mass executions and indiscriminate bombardments of villages, then I can't hold the politicians who are ultimately responsbile for their actions accountable. In that case, generals have no incentive not to commit war crimes apart from their own moral compass --- if information comes out after 50 years barely anyone cares anymore. Hence, it is not illogical that the first steps that a society takes towards totalitarianism involve curtailing the free press.

There is a difference between curtailing the press and keeping some information need-to-know. Manning indiscriminately released hundreds of thousands of pages of information about our military presence in the Middle East and had the wrong information gotten out it would have put peoples lives in danger. Fortunately the only information that got out was stuff we essentially already know. If someone is legitimately surprised that people die during war or that politicians are gossiping about each other they don't have the media access required to learn about it after Manning released those documents.

What Manning might have achieved is reminding generals and politicians that they may be held accountable even for actions that remain classified. Since they will be less eager to start wars, there will be more peace, hence the Peace Prize. I understand that what Manning leaked wasn't the hottest stuff around, but he's more than a random whistle-blower. Then again, the one who should get this years's Nobel Peace Prize is, of course, Julian Assange. I can't find if he's been nominated, though, apparently the nomination committee only leaks (lol pun) the names of a few nomiess but keeps the entire list secret.

Except no one's being held accountable because no one actually did anything wrong. A lot of people trying to support Manning point to a video of soldiers shooting into a group of people that includes U.S. citizens being held hostage, anyone who's ever called Manning a traitor online has had to point out the terrorists had weapons that put the soldiers in danger making their actions legally and morally justifiable. If anything Manning's actions distracted the public from searching for real misdeeds and corruption because they were busy bitching about things they already knew about and Manning's imprisonment (kind of like the NDAA getting passed without much opposition while the internet threw a tantrum over SOPA and PIPA). Wikileaks does the same thing to a much larger extent, displaying information online that no one outside the government really needs to know under the premise of revealing government corruption but without revealing anything worthwhile. If wikileaks ever does get anything that actually shows corruption that information could just as easily be given to news sites by a real whistleblower rather than some wannabe trying to look like a hero without doing anything to make a difference. Neither Manning nor Assange deserve to win a Nobel Prize, but Gore and Obama both got one by talking big and doing nothing so I guess one of them will probably get it.

Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Feb. 28th, 2012 @ 07:00 PM Reply

At 1 hour ago, djack wrote:
At 5 minutes ago, Angry-Hatter wrote:
At 31 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote:
At 22 minutes ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: 5th Ammendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia,
Sorry bud. Time to read the Constitution.
Alright, I got a hard copy right here in front of me, what am I looking for?
The part he highlighted, dumbass. Bradly Manning is a military officer, he can be treated however the government wants to treat him because he gave up certain rights when he agreed to enter the military.

Alright you fat, smelly turd, perhaps YOU should have read the parts that I highlighted. Here, I'll show you:

No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... ~~ 5th Ammendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial... ~~ 6th Ammendment

...cruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted. ~~ 8th

If you'll notice, the part that Camarohusky quoted only refers to the fact that crimes committed by military personell while in the service of the United States armed forces may be tried in military court instead of before a Grand Jury (civilian court). However, it does not in any way negate any of the parts of the Constitution that I highlighted, such as the right to not be deprived of life, liberty or property without a trial, the right to a speedy and public trial, or protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

1: Bradley Manning has been deprived of his liberty for almost two years, without a trial.

2: For much of that time (a period of about 9 straight months), Manning was placed in solitary confinement, which most would consider to be cruel and unusual (not even convicted murderes spend that much time in solitary), especially considering that Manning hasn't been convicted of or even TRIED for any crime.

I find your apparent belief that you somehow surrender your constitutional rights once you join the military to be hilariously misinformed.


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Feb. 28th, 2012 @ 07:01 PM Reply

Good For Bradley Manning.
I hope he wins & more people help expose the shady dealings the petty BS that goes on .
We need better whistle blowers people with dirt from inside the Big Banking Cartels.
THey should put the wikileaks people up for prizes as well.


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Feb. 28th, 2012 @ 07:06 PM Reply

Nothing this man did is deserving of a Peace Prize. Not even consideration.

Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Feb. 28th, 2012 @ 07:14 PM Reply

At 1 minute ago, Camarohusky wrote: Nothing this man did is deserving of a Peace Prize. Not even consideration.

Ironic how if Manning had been given a proper trial instead of being the victim of such blatant miscarriages of justice, he would have been convicted, he wouldn't have been seen as as much of a martyr, and he would probably never have been considered for a Peace Prize.


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Feb. 28th, 2012 @ 08:06 PM Reply

At 49 minutes ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: he wouldn't have been seen as as much of a martyr, and he would probably never have been considered for a Peace Prize.

Make sure I'm right here. It's the Nobel Peace Prize, not the Nobel You Got Mistreated But Didn't Really Do Anything of Note Prize, right?

The fact that he was chosen doesn't reflect well on peace in the world today...

Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Feb. 28th, 2012 @ 09:03 PM Reply

At 19 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote:
At 49 minutes ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: he wouldn't have been seen as as much of a martyr, and he would probably never have been considered for a Peace Prize.
Make sure I'm right here. It's the Nobel Peace Prize, not the Nobel You Got Mistreated But Didn't Really Do Anything of Note Prize, right?

The fact that he was chosen doesn't reflect well on peace in the world today...

Well, for one thing, he hasn't actually been chosen for anything, he's only been nominated by someone or some organization unaffiliated with the Nobel Committee, something which apparently isn't all too difficult to accomplish.

For another, I don't consider blowing the whistle on the misconduct on the part of the greatest war machine on the planet to not be "anything of note", nor do I necessarily view it as the greatest contribution to world peace. I'm certain there are plenty of nominees at least as deserving of the Prize as Manning, and many more that are more so deserving, but I certainly wouldn't mind giving Manning some credit for what he did.

There would be a signifigant level of irony to Manning receiving the Peace Prize though; one Nobel Piece Prize winner being imprisoned under the authority of another Peace Prize winner.


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Feb. 28th, 2012 @ 09:16 PM Reply

as long as it isn't those fucktards in Wikileaks they have brought so much blowback for the US it is unreal.

Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Feb. 29th, 2012 @ 07:43 AM Reply

At 10 hours ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: as long as it isn't those fucktards in Wikileaks they have brought so much blowback for the US it is unreal.

Yeah, if only all the shady/illegal/evil shit we pull around the world stayed secret like it should be, we'd be getting much less flak!


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Feb. 29th, 2012 @ 03:16 PM Reply

At 18 hours ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: For another, I don't consider blowing the whistle on the misconduct on the part of the greatest war machine on the planet to not be "anything of note", nor do I necessarily view it as the greatest contribution to world peace. I'm certain there are plenty of nominees at least as deserving of the Prize as Manning, and many more that are more so deserving, but I certainly wouldn't mind giving Manning some credit for what he did.

Giving out secret information that puts your fellow soldier in harm's way because you don't fit in and hate your job is hardly in the same universe as peace. The only reason he's nominated is because some pot smoking occupy protestor think's it's hip because he stuck it to "the man".

Don't be fooled by Wikileaks. Let him get into your mind and next thing you know, you've been raped.

JoS
JoS
  • Member since: Aug. 11, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Feb. 29th, 2012 @ 05:04 PM Reply

At 1 day ago, Angry-Hatter wrote:
At 22 hours ago, JoS wrote: someone who ALLEGEDLY committed treason and espionage is nominated.
Fixed that for you. Bradley Manning hasn't actually been tried and convicted of anything yet. He has, however, been detained without bail, without trial, largely in isolation, for close to two years now.

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.

5th Ammendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

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.

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.

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.


Bellum omnium contra omnes

BBS Signature
orangebomb
orangebomb
  • Member since: Mar. 18, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 19
Gamer
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Feb. 29th, 2012 @ 10:09 PM Reply

At 1 day ago, Angry-Hatter wrote:
At 19 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote:
At 49 minutes ago, Angry-Hatter wrote:
For another, I don't consider blowing the whistle on the misconduct on the part of the greatest war machine on the planet to not be "anything of note", nor do I necessarily view it as the greatest contribution to world peace. I'm certain there are plenty of nominees at least as deserving of the Prize as Manning, and many more that are more so deserving, but I certainly wouldn't mind giving Manning some credit for what he did.

Yeah, spilling the beans on military secrets just because he had an issue with the U.S. Army should never be considered for the Nobel Peace prize, considering before this, he was part of the greatest war machine out there. That, and snitching against your own military and your own country to the scumbags that is Wikileaks is basically an insult to everyone to the military and to the rest of us who aren't part of the douchebaggery of the Occupy movement.

There would be a signifigant level of irony to Manning receiving the Peace Prize though; one Nobel Piece Prize winner being imprisoned under the authority of another Peace Prize winner.

It pretty much goes back to my point that the Nobel Prize is a fucking joke now, when you nominate candidates who snitch on the very same government that Manning is employed in to Assage and the spineless assholes at Wikileaks. When someone undermine the work of government employees like diplomats and military personnel, while in a U.S. Army uniform no less, they deserve what's coming to them, and to say otherwise is simply ignorant, and possibly dangerous as well.


Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.

BBS Signature
Elfer
Elfer
  • Member since: Jan. 21, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 38
Blank Slate
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Feb. 29th, 2012 @ 10:30 PM Reply

You know, I'm willing to bet that all of the categories of the Nobel Prize are ridiculously politicized, it's just that the Peace Prize is the only one that can be understood by laypeople.

Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Feb. 29th, 2012 @ 10:57 PM Reply

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-
iraqi-interrogators-rape-juveniles-to-get-confessions/

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 Angry_Hatter@hotmail.com, password is "YOUAREANIDIOT", one word.


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Feb. 29th, 2012 @ 11:08 PM Reply

At 6 minutes ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: Failed to listen

once again

you cannot imprison someone indefinitely without a trial, nor are they allowed to inflict cruel and unusual punishment.

once again. what you fail to realize is how the military justice system works theres so much red tape for it (like everything in the US Military) it takes forever for shit to get done. Mannings claim of "cruel and unusual punishment" is fucking unfounded all he is trying to do is make himself look like a fucking victim. its fucking pathetic.

Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Feb. 29th, 2012 @ 11:35 PM Reply

At 19 minutes ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: once again. what you fail to realize is how the military justice system works theres so much red tape for it (like everything in the US Military) it takes forever for shit to get done.

Oh, well then I guess that makes everything all right then.

Mannings claim of "cruel and unusual punishment" is fucking unfounded all he is trying to do is make himself look like a fucking victim. its fucking pathetic.

Oh, I didn't realize that. Now that you put it like that, yeah, being put in solitary confinement for 9 straight months for no good reason, without having been tried for or convicted of anything, while the military tries to extract a phony confession out of you doesn't seem that bad. He's just being a drama queen! What a pussy!


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Mar. 1st, 2012 @ 12:13 AM Reply

At 29 minutes ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: Oh, well then I guess that makes everything all right then.

thats how the legal system works especially for such a case like this one theres certain paper work to fill out signatures then that case has to wait its turn in court plus you have his lawyers trying to pull shit that doesn't make it any quicker.

Oh, I didn't realize that. Now that you put it like that, yeah, being put in solitary confinement for 9 straight months for no good reason,

he was deemed a security threat for national security he had a high security clearance, and he has been put on suicide watch before he has a past medical history of depression.

without having been tried for or convicted of anything, while the military tries to extract a phony confession out of you doesn't seem that bad. He's just being a drama queen! What a pussy!

the military wouldn't even try pulling that shit with a high profile case like that shit. plus why would he need a confession he is already guilty as hell theres enough evidence.

Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Mar. 1st, 2012 @ 12:52 AM Reply

At 17 minutes ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: thats how the legal system works especially for such a case like this one theres certain paper work to fill out signatures then that case has to wait its turn in court plus you have his lawyers trying to pull shit that doesn't make it any quicker.

OH, WELL THEN I GUESS THAT MAKES EVERYTHING AAAAAAAAAAALL RIGHT THEN!

he was deemed a security threat for national security he had a high security clearance

Ok, so you explain it to me then, since it's so obvious to you: how was Bradley Manning such a great security risk that he HAD to be housed in solitary confinement instead of in a regular cell-block?

and he has been put on suicide watch before he has a past medical history of depression.

Yep, nothing cures a snap of depression better than being all alone in a tiny room for 23 hours a day for nine months.

without having been tried for or convicted of anything, while the military tries to extract a phony confession out of you doesn't seem that bad. He's just being a drama queen! What a pussy!
the military wouldn't even try pulling that shit with a high profile case like that shit. plus why would he need a confession he is already guilty as hell theres enough evidence.

Ah, there's the kicker, you see. They weren't looking for anything more on Manning. What they wanted was for Manning to implicate Julian Assange as having been involved in soliciting the leaked cables from Manning, which would make Assange criminally liable for conspiring to commit a felony. Assange is the real target and the reason for the mistreatment of Bradley Manning by the US government.

You can read about it here.


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Bradley Manning Nobel Prize Mar. 1st, 2012 @ 02:19 AM Reply

At 1 hour ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: OH, WELL THEN I GUESS THAT MAKES EVERYTHING AAAAAAAAAAALL RIGHT THEN!

I just told you how it is if I never said its right eeven though it seems I imply it. they should get it done with and stop wasting tax money

Ok, so you explain it to me then, since it's so obvious to you: how was Bradley Manning such a great security risk that he HAD to be housed in solitary confinement instead of in a regular cell-block?

when your a security risk with intelligence its a Military SOP to keep them seperated even though he would be anyways since he is in a military prison.

Yep, nothing cures a snap of depression better than being all alone in a tiny room for 23 hours a day for nine months.
without having been tried for or convicted of anything, while the military tries to extract a phony confession out of you doesn't seem that bad. He's just being a drama queen! What a pussy!
the military wouldn't even try pulling that shit with a high profile case like that shit. plus why would he need a confession he is already guilty as hell theres enough evidence.
Ah, there's the kicker, you see. They weren't looking for anything more on Manning. What they wanted was for Manning to implicate Julian Assange as having been involved in soliciting the leaked cables from Manning, which would make Assange criminally liable for conspiring to commit a felony. Assange is the real target and the reason for the mistreatment of Bradley Manning by the US government.

You can read about it here. as for mistreatment it really isn't its a military prison they play by different rules and prisons here aren't to bad and there have been reports of guards being professional to him. as for assange he brougt it on himself.

the thing about that is is manning is charged with these counts

UCMJ 104 (Aiding the enemy): 1 count. This charge carries a potential death penalty.

UCMJ 92 (Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation): 9 counts. Mostly related to computers.
Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-6(k): Forbids transferring classified info to non-secure systems
Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(3): Modifying or installing unauthorized software to a system, using it for 'unintended' purposes.
Army Regulation 25-2, para. 4-5(a)(4): Circumventing security mechanisms
Army Regulation 380-5: Improper storage of Classified Information

UCMJ 134 (General article): 24 counts. Most of these counts incorporate civilian statutes from the United States Code:
18 U.S.C. § 641: Embezzlement and Theft of Public Money, Property or Records. The government has claimed that various sets of records that Manning transferred were 'things of value' and has thus charged him under this statute.
18 U.S.C. § 793(e): This is part of the Espionage Act. The law forbids 'unauthorized persons' from taking 'national defense' information and either 'retaining' it or delivering it to 'persons not entitled to receive it'. The terminology is rather complicated and often contested in court.
793(e) exists because the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950 modified the original 1917 Espionage Act, partly because of the Alger Hiss/Pumpkin papers case. It is also the same law used against Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo in the Pentagon papers case.
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a) 1 & 2: These are from the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.
1030(a)(1) is sometimes called the 'Computer Espionage' law as it borrows much of it's language from the Espionage Act. It was modified by the USA Patriot Act of 2001, which added it to the 'Federal Crimes of Terrorism' list, as well as making it prosecutable under RICO (Racketeering) law.

RICO is what got Jullian Assange its a fun little loophole Law enforcement like to use to fuck people over. and if you do not know what RICO is here is a summary

* is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows for the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them, closing a perceived loophole that allowed someone who told a man to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because they did not actually do it.

or in this case accepted CLASSIFIED INFORMATION stolen from military servers with knowledge where it came from (supposedly) and he released it. and now he can get the same shit manning could get (minus that death penalty shit), and be extradited. and since he is already a felon for hacking it doesn't help his case.

now if I missed anything or misspelled sorry im tired at the time I posted this its 1:30 AM.