At 10/1/12 11:30 PM, Feoric wrote: Leaking my or anyone else's personal e-mails and private information such as passwords isn't a protected action under US law.

But you're unwilling to do it, which is my entire point; you expect others to behave in such a manner that you wouldn't do yourself.

The point of Wikileaks is to behave as a vehicle for whistleblowers (coincidentally, a man you voted for is the one who first coined the term).

And what was Manning blowing the whistle on, exactly? I've asked this question repeatedly, and I've yet to see anybody answer it. You guys are valiantly defending something you can't or aren't willing to define, and you think I'm the crazy one?

There is no sane comparison between you broadcasting my passwords and a whistleblower broadcasting legitimate malpractice.

WHAT FUCKING MALPRACTICE?

At 10/1/12 11:54 PM, Proteas wrote: But you're unwilling to do it, which is my entire point; you expect others to behave in such a manner that you wouldn't do yourself.

How is this a valid point at all? Do you understand the point of whistleblowing and the appropriating laws guiding it? Do I expect governments to say "why, yes, I will hand over this highly incriminating evidence that proves malfeasance on our watch"? No, obviously, so I rely on whistleblowers to act as a form of checks and balances. Is this somehow illegitimized by the fact that I won't give you my Newgrounds password? Is it even remotely comparable?

And what was Manning blowing the whistle on, exactly? I've asked this question repeatedly, and I've yet to see anybody answer it. You guys are valiantly defending something you can't or aren't willing to define, and you think I'm the crazy one?

It's not something up for me to define as I wasn't the one leaking, so I'll use his words instead. He said that part of his motive was that the diplomatic cables show âEUoehow the first world exploits the thirdâEU. Reportedly, it was Manning seeing the now infamous video of the Apache helicopter attack that inspired him to leak all those hundreds of files.

Here's where it gets tricky. If it were just the Apache video and cables that uncategorically proved wrongdoing, I'd call Manning a hero and a historic example of whistleblowing. But along with that video Manning dumped a HUGE number of other files, and most of them (nearly all) were junk, and Assange is an idiot for publishing so many of these useless cables.

Now here's a question I don't know the answer to: what was his intent? Releasing information that is potentially harmful to the US war effort and it's participants is excusable if and only if you believe it contains evidence of major ongoing crimes. It's incredibly selfish and irresponsible if you don't care what's in it if you're just mad at your boss, and it's traitorous if you believe it is useful information that needs to be disseminated to enemies of the US. This is just my opinion, but I think Manning thought (albeit foolishly) he was exposing a bulk amount of evidence of wrongdoing. Intent matters. It's the difference between being a whistleblower, being a traitor, or being Scooter Libby.

WHAT FUCKING MALPRACTICE?

Check out this article from Glenn Greenwald.

At 10/2/12 12:42 AM, Feoric wrote: How is this a valid point at all? Do you understand the point of whistleblowing and the appropriating laws guiding it?

Do you understand that Manning didn't actually whistleblow on anything, that he just exposed people's private emails and info? And as such, me demanding to see YOUR private e-mails and info would be a reasonable request to someone arguing the same line used to defend the Patriot Act, namely, "If you didn't do anything wrong you have nothing to hide?"

It's called reciprocity. If someone is not willing to share such information, they have no business demanding that such information be shared.

But along with that video Manning dumped a HUGE number of other files, and most of them (nearly all) were junk, and Assange is an idiot for publishing so many of these useless cables.

Oh, so he didn't actually whistleblow on anything that mattered, he just doled out confidential company information he wasn't supposed to share. Nobody has ever gotten fired from their job or gotten into serious trouble for doing that in the history of EVER.

Check out this article from Glenn Greenwald.

Ah, more of the same bullshit.

At 10/2/12 01:10 AM, Proteas wrote: Do you understand that Manning didn't actually whistleblow on anything, that he just exposed people's private emails and info? And as such, me demanding to see YOUR private e-mails and info would be a reasonable request to someone arguing the same line used to defend the Patriot Act, namely, "If you didn't do anything wrong you have nothing to hide?"

You're flat out wrong. There was an immense amount of stuff in there that the public had a right to know, and an immense amount of legitimate whistleblower material. The leak was protected whistleblowing, because it revealed actual crimes and other bad stuff. Your line of thinking is that since Manning leaked people's private emails, it's somehow not legitimate whistleblowing, and because private emails were leaked in the process of dumping hundreds of thousands of documents, I should somehow be okay with giving you access to my private emails.

Here's my position: It's legitimate to release information you know should be released; it's not legitimate to just copy the entirety of the info you have access to and leak that. The distinction is in one case you've made a specific determination the information you're leaking is improperly being suppressed; in the other you haven't. I have no problem whatsoever with the Apache murder video leak, the public had a right to know about this crime; however, I do have a problem with copying the entiretyof the diplomatic cables he had access to without any good reason why that class of documents needed to be released. For clarification, so there is no room for obfuscation: I did not support the dumping of the entirety of the diplomatic cables at the time, and I still don't to this day. However, that does not delegitimize the fact that evidence of severe malpractice on behalf of the United States was documented and reported on.

To expand on the topic of the legitimacy of the cable dump, it depends on if you have a good justification for leaking the entire class of documents. One can condemn the leak of a specific document, while not condemning the leaks of other documents: this is because you're making differing value judgments on which documents "ought" to be released. Personally, I consider "the diplomatic cables Manning had access to" a class of documents that does not meet the standard of "ought to be released". Now, we're dealing with a class of documents that have solid reasons for being kept secret; I would expect a compelling rationale for why they all should be dumped. I have not seen any good reason for why they should have dumped; I believe there's serious, legitimate reasons to keep diplomatic cables classified and there was no compelling rationale for leaking them as a class. There are certainly some documents in the diplomatic cables that might, on their own, be worth leaking, but that's not enough to justify the dump. I have not seen any specific cables that justify release of the documents as a class; a document that ought to be released (because releasing it specifically will do more good than harm) doesn't justify releasing the entire class it's in unless releasing it will do more good than the total harm of releasing all of the documents. I think it's fairly safe to say that as of this point there hasn't been anything revealed in a certain subgroup of "releasable" documents that warranted the dumping the entire class of documents.

Question: did you think the discovery of the cruelty in Abu Graib or the leak of the FOB Ramrod Kill Team were objectively a good thing?

It's called reciprocity. If someone is not willing to share such information, they have no business demanding that such information be shared.

Here's the thing. I'm not a corporation, I'm not a government. I'm a regular average citizen and typically people like me aren't susceptible to whistleblowers. I'm also not "calling" for zealous good Samaritans to hack into work emails and dump them online. In fact, I'm calling for the exact opposite. What Bradley Manning did with the diplomatic cables was flat out irresponsible, and it's this irresponsibly that has rather needlessly called into question the legitimacy of the content that was worth leaking to the public.

Oh, so he didn't actually whistleblow on anything that mattered, he just doled out confidential company information he wasn't supposed to share. Nobody has ever gotten fired from their job or gotten into serious trouble for doing that in the history of EVER.

It was a combination of both, it's not either or, and one does not cancel out the other.

Ah, more of the same bullshit.

Oh! The evidence you asked me to show you is bullshit? Well in that case I guess the discussion is over! Thanks for clearing it all up!

At 10/1/12 11:30 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 10/1/12 10:47 PM, Proteas wrote: What exactly were you contributing to the discussion, besides being a smartass?

You'd have a point if I was the one posting half-clever photoshopped jpegs to get my point across.

This plus him looking for another person to back him up just proves he's just throwing crap out. And comparing whistle blowing to releasing passwords seals it.
Ignore the fucking emails and see the stuff Wikileaks has posted before. They're the largest whistle blower group around. I remember a long time ago they said the next release would be stuff on the banks. If they do the smell from that dirty laundry will kill you from 200 miles away.

At 10/2/12 03:33 AM, Feoric wrote: There was an immense amount of stuff in there that the public had a right to know, and an immense amount of legitimate whistleblower material.

Like what?

You keep insisting that I'm wrong and vaguely asserting that Manning uncovered some great bit of information (like others in this topic have done, but refuse to speak on), while at the same time admitting that he really didn't uncover anything and that the vast majority of what he sent Assange was junk. You even go on through your post and eventually admit that you and I are actually on the same page of this matter, saying that he was an irresponsible idiot for doing what he did and that he had no business doing it. You don't even support the leaking of those documents. Yet we differ on one very basic definition; what is or is not whistleblowing.

The leak was protected whistleblowing,

The very definition of whistleblowing is that you are doing it to reveal a crime or a danger to the public, and the very legal concept of the act is very much the same. Manning dumped documents thinking that he would be blowing the whistle on something, when in reality he was violating the trust the U.S. Government and countless embassy officials, and his act revealed little to nothing. He's not a whistleblower, he's an idiot.

Your line of thinking is that since Manning leaked people's private emails, it's somehow not legitimate whistleblowing,

You're line of thinking is that Manning leaking people private emails is somehow protected whistle-blowing, when in other similar situations you know damn well it wouldn't be. If I downloaded the contents of my bosses' email inbox and sent it out for the world to see, I wouldn't be considered a whistle-blower, and no lawyer would even attempt to mount a defense for me under the whistle-blower law; people would think me and idiot for doing it, I'd get shit canned from my job and very likely sued for revealing private company info. If I leaked the contents of YOUR e-mail inbox, I wouldn't be considered a whistle-blower, I would be brought up on charges just like the guy who hacked Sarah Palin's e-mail account.

Manning isn't a whistle-blower; he's a glory seeker who can't even be properly defended by those who speak favorably of him.

Question: did you think the discovery of the cruelty in Abu Graib or the leak of the FOB Ramrod Kill Team were objectively a good thing?

Yes. I have no issue with whistle-blowing when it's done with the intent to expose an actual crime, I take issue with people who think whistle-blowing is a catch-all term to protect everyday acts of idiocy.

Oh! The evidence you asked me to show you is bullshit? Well in that case I guess the discussion is over! Thanks for clearing it all up!

I asked you to show me of evidence of what Manning uncovered as a malpractice or a misdeed, you showed me evidence how people's reactions to the whole situation were somehow "shocking." Which leads me to conclude that you can't show evidence of what Manning uncovered, either because you won't or because it doesn't exist.

At 10/2/12 09:55 AM, Proteas wrote: You keep insisting that I'm wrong and vaguely asserting that Manning uncovered some great bit of information (like others in this topic have done, but refuse to speak on), while at the same time admitting that he really didn't uncover anything and that the vast majority of what he sent Assange was junk. You even go on through your post and eventually admit that you and I are actually on the same page of this matter, saying that he was an irresponsible idiot for doing what he did and that he had no business doing it. You don't even support the leaking of those documents. Yet we differ on one very basic definition; what is or is not whistleblowing.

You're right, we are on the same page in regard to Manning's actions. Here's what I disagree with:

Do you understand that Manning didn't actually whistleblow on anything

He did, and I'll get to that later on in this post.

The very definition of whistleblowing is that you are doing it to reveal a crime or a danger to the public, and the very legal concept of the act is very much the same. Manning dumped documents thinking that he would be blowing the whistle on something, when in reality he was violating the trust the U.S. Government and countless embassy officials, and his act revealed little to nothing. He's not a whistleblower, he's an idiot.

It's a tricky scenario because there are both a) actual material worth leaking and b) material not worth leaking. I'm not a lawyer and I don't know the legal ramifications in the terms of whether it was protected whistleblowing, so I hope this rectifies that part of my post.

I don't think Manning is an idiot, though. The question is whether an individual faced with thousands of pages documents which he knows to contain evidence of misconduct is obligated to collate and parse the entire thing himself before reporting it. I think that this is an unreasonable expectation. I personally think he should have left the diplomatic cables and the war logs alone. It's not hard to see why he thought he was doing a good thing, although this is not an excuse at all.

You're line of thinking is that Manning leaking people private emails is somehow protected whistle-blowing, when in other similar situations you know damn well it wouldn't be. If I downloaded the contents of my bosses' email inbox and sent it out for the world to see, I wouldn't be considered a whistle-blower, and no lawyer would even attempt to mount a defense for me under the whistle-blower law; people would think me and idiot for doing it, I'd get shit canned from my job and very likely sued for revealing private company info. If I leaked the contents of YOUR e-mail inbox, I wouldn't be considered a whistle-blower, I would be brought up on charges just like the guy who hacked Sarah Palin's e-mail account.

No, this is not my position at all, and I've gone to great lengths to tell you this. Whether is be email, cable, or other forms of communication, if there is nothing incriminating, it's not protected. But this is more complicated than that. The fact of the matter is that Manning largely had no clue what he was dumping, and that is irresponsible. This doesn't cancel out the fact that actual information was leaked that should otherwise be considered protected.

I asked you to show me of evidence of what Manning uncovered as a malpractice or a misdeed, you showed me evidence how people's reactions to the whole situation were somehow "shocking." Which leads me to conclude that you can't show evidence of what Manning uncovered, either because you won't or because it doesn't exist.

I don't think you read the article.

Wikileaks releases video depicting US forces killing of two Reuters journalists in Iraq

'Ha ha, I hit 'em': Top secret video showing U.S. helicopter pilots gunning down 12 civilians in Baghdad attack leaked online

Iraq war logs: Secret order that let US ignore abuse

Iraq war logs reveal 15,000 previously unlisted civilian deaths

Clinton ordered American diplomats to spy on U.N. officials

Obama and GOPers Worked Together to Kill Bush Torture Probe

U.S. Pressured Germany Not To Prosecute CIA Officers For Torture And Rendition

Cables Show Germany Caved to Pressure from Washington

WikiLeaks Exposes Rumsfeld's Lies

Yemeni president lied about US strikes

Contrary to public statements, Obama admin fueled conflict in Yemen

...do I need to continue? Because I can.

At 10/1/12 10:47 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 10/1/12 10:31 PM, BumFodder wrote: That is invasion of privacy how? Youre getting a bit confused.

There is an expectation of privacy in the network those e-mails were sent across. He had no right to download them. He had no right to distribute them. He violated the privacy of those Embassy Officials and he endangered the lives of countless U.S. Servicemen and Officials abroad.

There is an expectation of privacy and it is against the law, but the endangered part is just a load of sensationalist crap and I dont see how it makes you a so called 'enemy of the state'. If he has a genuine, reasonable reason then I dont see why he should be an 'enemy of the state'.

I enjoy the fact that Manning will never see the light of day again. I also enjoy the fact that Assange will never have a moment of peace for the rest of his life, being constantly paranoid that some foreign government may deport him to the U.S. to answer for what he did.

Youre pretty sad then if you dont respect someone for trying to make the goverment more transparent.

Youre either one of those stupid overly-patriotic americans or just some idiot who listens to everything they are spoonfed.

At 9/30/12 06:59 PM, HiryuGouki wrote: True enough; but even so. There is information that the government keeps a secret to ensure OUR safety; like the locations of key facilities or the locations of nuclear missile stockpiles and so on. If an enemy were to get their hands on that information, we're all done for.

When has Wikileaks published something threatening like that?

At 10/2/12 06:08 PM, Feoric wrote: This doesn't cancel out the fact that actual information was leaked that should otherwise be considered protected.

So where are Ralph Nader and the ACLU when this guy needs them?

Oh, that's right, this guy leaked 251,287 cables, 400,000 classified reports, 90,000 army reports, and two videos. Even if he had whistle-blower protection under the law for the couple dozen or so documents he turned over that actually turned out to be something, they've still got another 741,265 more reasons to lock this guy up for the rest of his life.

I don't think you read the article.

I did read the article. Here's an abridged version of it, because you clearly didn't read it yourself before you posted it; it's a three paragraph editorial about how people have reacted to the wikileaks controversy.

...do I need to continue? Because I can.

You made your point, and I've made mine.

At 10/2/12 07:07 PM, BumFodder wrote: If he has a genuine, reasonable reason then I dont see why he should be an 'enemy of the state'.

His "genuine, reasonable reason" was "I think there might be something in this."

Youre pretty sad then if you dont respect someone for trying to make the goverment more transparent.

Feoric doesn't respect the guy either, do you think he's sad?

Youre either one of those stupid overly-patriotic americans or just some idiot who listens to everything they are spoonfed.

Actually, it's Schadenfraude; I take great pleasure in the misfortune of others. These two individuals thought they were doing the world a favor, and instead, they were made to be the villains. They'll never have the glory they sought, they'll never be remembered as heroes, they will go down in history as the two idiots who tangled with the wrong country, only to be fondly remembered by ideologues like you.

At 10/2/12 10:09 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 10/2/12 06:08 PM, Feoric wrote: This doesn't cancel out the fact that actual information was leaked that should otherwise be considered protected.

So where are Ralph Nader and the ACLU when this guy needs them?

Oh, that's right, this guy leaked 251,287 cables, 400,000 classified reports, 90,000 army reports, and two videos. Even if he had whistle-blower protection under the law for the couple dozen or so documents he turned over that actually turned out to be something, they've still got another 741,265 more reasons to lock this guy up for the rest of his life.

There was a lot more uncovered than you're willing to admit, but I agree that the entire dump is grounds for prosecution under the fullest extent of the UCMJ, unfortunately.

I did read the article. Here's an abridged version of it, because you clearly didn't read it yourself before you posted it; it's a three paragraph editorial about how people have reacted to the wikileaks controversy.

There is a nifty "continue reading" button towards the bottom that gives you a rather extensive list of articles that reported on incriminating material that was unearthed because of his leak. The sources I linked in my previous post is actually directly from that Greenwald article, so yeah.

Speaking of nifty things, I was talking with a friend of mine today and learned something that might pique Feoric's interest in the subject of Whistleblowing. It's called the "Military Whistleblower Protection Act" of 1988. It protects Whistleblowers, but only when those communications are made to members of Congress or higher ups in the military. What Manning did caused him to forfeit his Whistleblower protection under the law. Click.

I knew your argument didn't hold water, Feoric, now I have something to back it up with.

At 10/4/12 11:48 PM, Proteas wrote: It protects Whistleblowers, but only when those communications are made to members of Congress or higher ups in the military. What Manning did caused him to forfeit his Whistleblower protection under the law. Click.

All whistleblower statutes have such restrictions. Often times the whistleblower is required to exhaust all inner options before going outside of the organization.

For those of you who are saying that any of the Wikileaks material was allowable please see the excerpt from the Regulations egarding whistleblowing,

Per 5 CFR 1209.4 (b):
It does not include a disclosure that is specifically prohibited by law or required by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign affairs, unless such information is disclosed to the Special Counsel, the Inspector General of an agency, or an employee designated by the head of the agency to receive it. (emphasis added)

At 10/5/12 01:13 AM, Camarohusky wrote: All whistleblower statutes have such restrictions. Often times the whistleblower is required to exhaust all inner options before going outside of the organization.

Is there anything to show that Manning exhausted such options before going to the media, though?

At 10/5/12 08:51 AM, Proteas wrote: Is there anything to show that Manning exhausted such options before going to the media, though?

The very nature of Manning's case, had it not been material of foreign affairs, would likely mean that Manning could have gone straight to the media.

The proper order and channels can be bypassed in cases where you know, or have reasonable belief that those channels are involved in the acts you question. The nature of the Wikileaks materials implicates people all up and down the military and the State Department, leaving little options for internal disclosure.

At 10/5/12 12:03 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The proper order and channels can be bypassed in cases where you know, or have reasonable belief that those channels are involved in the acts you question.

Then how do you explain that such cases as the Abu Graib Prison Scandal or -- better yet -- the Ramrod Kill team were handled inside the military without the whistleblower going to the media? In the case of the Ramrod Kill Team, one of the members of that team was actually sentenced on additional charges for planning a reprisal against the whistleblower Justin Stoner. It's very clear that the Military does take this kind of thing very seriously.

The nature of the Wikileaks materials implicates people all up and down the military and the State Department, leaving little options for internal disclosure.

He still could have went to members of Congress; that's 535 individuals from both sides of the aisle who could have listened to him.

At 10/5/12 12:27 PM, Proteas wrote: Then how do you explain that such cases as the Abu Graib Prison Scandal or -- better yet -- the Ramrod Kill team were handled inside the military without the whistleblower going to the media? In the case of the Ramrod Kill Team, one of the members of that team was actually sentenced on additional charges for planning a reprisal against the whistleblower Justin Stoner. It's very clear that the Military does take this kind of thing very seriously.

Both of these were quite different from releasing an entire chunk of military intelligence and diplomatic materials. Both of things you mention were quite small and clearly limited in participation, especially in the higer levels. The indiscriminate release of military information and diplomatic communications implicates a massive chunk of high level people.

In the end it does not matter whether Mannign would have been right in his assumption that the higher ups would not listen, just so long as his assumption was reasonable.

Again, the issue is moot as the type of materials Manning released were explicitly restricted from direct release to the media altogether. You're right that if Manning truly had a problem (and wasn't just being a recklessly vindictive bitch) he should have contacted a congressman.

At 10/2/12 10:09 PM, Proteas wrote: They'll never have the glory they sought, they'll never be remembered as heroes, they will go down in history as the two idiots who tangled with the wrong country, only to be fondly remembered by ideologues like you.

You have to be a troll. I dont believe anyone in their right mind could write something this stupid.

At 10/5/12 10:18 PM, BumFodder wrote:

At 10/2/12 10:09 PM, Proteas wrote: They'll never have the glory they sought, they'll never be remembered as heroes, they will go down in history as the two idiots who tangled with the wrong country, only to be fondly remembered by ideologues like you.

You have to be a troll. I dont believe anyone in their right mind could write something this stupid.

If Assange had done this to: Russia, China, Iran, Israel, Cuba, North Korea

He wouldn't even be alive to bask in his glorified dignity that he so apparently deserves. And if he did the right thing is running Wikileaks, why is his home country not protecting him from persecution?

At 10/6/12 01:56 AM, BloodPact wrote: If Assange had done this to: Russia, China, Iran, Israel, Cuba, North Korea

He wouldn't even be alive to bask in his glorified dignity that he so apparently deserves. And if he did the right thing is running Wikileaks, why is his home country not protecting him from persecution?

Because his home country is shit, obviously. And what is this glorified dignity he should be basking in that you seem to have made up? Its the content of what he released that people should be focusing on, it seems theyre trying to pull attention away from their failure by branding him an 'enemy of the state' which is an incredibly pathetic attempt at pulling attention away (trying their best to censor) while getting the person responsible arrested.

I dont know how you can support the USA in this matter because theyre trying to arrest a whistleblower who had a good justification for whistleblowing and censor what has been released.

Hm...by the sound of it, Obama was sme sort of champion of human rights. Guess not.

At 10/5/12 10:18 PM, BumFodder wrote: You have to be a troll. I dont believe anyone in their right mind could write something this stupid.

Awww, did I offend your sensibilities of what is right and just by showing you what is reality and the way things actually are? I'm sorry, let me console you with falsehoods and bullshit.

But wait, BloodPact took the words right out off of my keyboard.

At 10/6/12 01:56 AM, BloodPact wrote: If Assange had done this to: Russia, China, Iran, Israel, Cuba, North Korea

He wouldn't even be alive to bask in his glorified dignity that he so apparently deserves.

And the same goes for Manning. These two men would have been dead long before anybody in the media would have gotten wind of what was going on, and anybody associated with the release of that information would have been buried in the same grave with them (editors at the New York Times, anybody?). The very fact that Manning is still alive should speak more about the character of the U.S. Army than what the documents Manning leaked ever will.

At 10/6/12 08:08 AM, BumFodder wrote: I dont know how you can support the USA in this matter because theyre trying to arrest a whistleblower who had a good justification for whistleblowing and censor what has been released.

They're not trying to arrest him, they did arrest him; he's been in military prison now for the better part of two years. As I told Feoric, earlier; they've got 3/4 of a Million reasons to keep this guy locked up in prison for the rest of his life, he'll never see the light of day or be a free man ever again. And the thing is, a good number of those reasons were classified documents that the general public (much less the international community) had no right to see, things that have endangered our operations abroad and further damaged our reputation internationally.

As my friend said; there's a right way and a wrong way to go about whistleblowing in the military, and what Manning did was completely the wrong way of going about it. There's nothing in his action or his intentions that should be honored or respected, as the entirety of what he did was sell the United States out to our enemies abroad. The man is a traitor, it's a damn shame they are not pursuing the death penalty for what he did.

THAT is why I am standing up for the United States in all this, in spite of what was revealed.

At 10/7/12 02:41 PM, Proteas wrote: Awww, did I offend your sensibilities of what is right and just by showing you what is reality and the way things actually are? I'm sorry, let me console you with falsehoods and bullshit.

But wait, BloodPact took the words right out off of my keyboard.

lol you sound like youre mad.

And the same goes for Manning. These two men would have been dead long before anybody in the media would have gotten wind of what was going on, and anybody associated with the release of that information would have been buried in the same grave with them (editors at the New York Times, anybody?). The very fact that Manning is still alive should speak more about the character of the U.S. Army than what the documents Manning leaked ever will.

And that makes it alright? That makes sense how? "I dont like what you did so I can do anything to you as long as you dont die."

And why are you writing so much about manning? Im not even on about him. This is pretty much the only relevant paragraph.

At 10/7/12 03:46 PM, BumFodder wrote: lol you sound like youre mad.

*pats Bumfodder on the head*

You have yet to see me mad.

And that makes it alright? That makes sense how? "I dont like what you did so I can do anything to you as long as you dont die."

Would you had rather we gave him a pellet of Polonium and let him die "mysteriously" like Alexander Litvenenko? How about we kill them, then wipe any mention of them from the record books and Google like China did with the Tienanmen Square Protestors? Or publicly stone them while they are buried in sand up to their necks like they do in Iran? Krav Maga assasins are certainly cool enough, but so is death by firing squad.... but 40 years hard labor in the jungle for a bowl of rice a day is pretty vindictive too.

Yeah, being locked up for the rest of your life for betraying your state's trust is SO cruel.

And why are you writing so much about manning? Im not even on about him. This is pretty much the only relevant paragraph.

"I dont know how you can support the USA in this matter because theyre trying to arrest a whistleblower who had a good justification for whistleblowing and censor what has been released."

Now, I know I have issues with misreading people's posts every now and then, but that is clearly a statement about Manning.

As for Assange, he can't run forever.

At 10/7/12 08:41 PM, Proteas wrote: Would you had rather we gave him a pellet of Polonium and let him die "mysteriously" like Alexander Litvenenko? How about we kill them, then wipe any mention of them from the record books and Google like China did with the Tienanmen Square Protestors? Or publicly stone them while they are buried in sand up to their necks like they do in Iran? Krav Maga assasins are certainly cool enough, but so is death by firing squad.... but 40 years hard labor in the jungle for a bowl of rice a day is pretty vindictive too.

23 hours of solitary confinement is pretty awful, too. You're undoubtedly in support of the argument that Manning was in violation of the UCMJ, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have any rights. You seem to be making the argument that goes 'Manning has no idea how easy he's getting it here because RUSSIA does this and CHINA does that' but if you set the bar too low, nobody will limbo. It's excusing an Awful Thing solely on the basis that Other Awful Things happen in the world.

Do you think Vasili Mitrokhin was a hero?

Yeah, being locked up for the rest of your life for betraying your state's trust is SO cruel.

There's a lot of medical studies done on the short and long term effects of prolonged periods of solitary confinement, go look them up.

At 10/7/12 10:44 PM, Feoric wrote: You're undoubtedly correct that Manning was in violation of the UCMJ.

Corrected to reflect reality.

It's excusing an Awful Thing solely on the basis that Other Awful Things happen in the world.

And? Aren't we supposed to be better than everybody else? Aren't we supposed to set an example for the rest of the world to follow? That was the argument I kept seeing on here when the things that happened at Abu Graihb and Guantanamo Bay came to light, "How can we be taken seriously in the world when we act worse than the people we're fighting?"

Solitary confinement may not be pretty, but it's far better treatment and more humane than what other countries in the world would do for this guy, and you know it.

Do you think Vasili Mitrokhin was a hero?

Nope, more like an opportunist in need of money.

At 10/2/12 06:08 PM, Feoric wrote:

Wikileaks releases video depicting US forces killing of two Reuters journalists in Iraq

I saw that video.......along with the two journalists, there were insurgents with AKs and one with an RPG.

At 10/2/12 06:08 PM, Feoric wrote:

Wikileaks releases video depicting US forces killing of two Reuters journalists in Iraq

'Ha ha, I hit 'em': Top secret video showing U.S. helicopter pilots gunning down 12 civilians in Baghdad attack leaked online

Its war, shit happens. In World War 2 it was common to bomb entire cities. Not to make light of people dying but sometimes in war you have to make a call in a matter of seconds, while we get years to judge it. Also the pilot saw a guy with an RPG which can be neither confirmed nor denied by the video.

Iraq war logs: Secret order that let US ignore abuse

Thats not true. I read your article and it says that US forces reported the abuse and stopped it, as well as provided training for junior officers in Iraq's security forces, made unannounced inspections at police stations and prisons, and in some cases physically stayed at these locations to prevent further abuses. The only thing they did not do was investigate further and prosecute the Iraqi officials. That is the job of Iraqi's to investigate and punish the offenders. The US military did what they could to stop abuses.

Iraq war logs reveal 15,000 previously unlisted civilian deaths

These deaths are from all violent causes over a period of 5 years and includes both insurgents, Iraqi security forces, US military and civilians. Of the approximately 100 000 deaths recorded in this log, 31,780 are by IED, 34,814 are from sectarian fighting. 28000 are insurgents, 15000 are members of Iraq's security forces and 4000 are members of US and coalition military forces. The remaining 60 000 are civilians, but like I stated before, most were killed by Iraqi's, not by the US military.

Clinton ordered American diplomats to spy on U.N. officials

Diplomats gather 95% of intelligence in the world, mainly from open sources or personal contacts and observations. The James Bond's of the world only gather about 5% of the intelligence. No one should be shocked diplomats are being used to gather information. The Chinese, the Russians and nearly every other country in the world does it.

This is perhaps something that could have been worth bringing to the attention of Congress.

Obama and GOPers Worked Together to Kill Bush Torture Probe

Spain has a law on their books that gives them "universal" jurisdiction for crimes committed against any Spanish citizen or resident, anywhere in the world. The case was opened because 5 people in Gitmo fell under that broad category. After this case was dropped Spain actually changed the law to make it less broad. This wasn't a probe into the use of torture, this was an attempt by some to manipulate the Spanish legal system to bring a politically motivated criminal charge against members of the Bush Administration. Would you really expect the US gov't to let this happen?

Its worth pointing out that governments all the time go to bat for their citizens. The Canadian government went to bat against Pakistan when Ahmed khadr, a known senior member of Al Quida was arrested in Pakistan. I fail to see hwo this issue is one requiring whistle blowing.

U.S. Pressured Germany Not To Prosecute CIA Officers For Torture And Rendition

Again see above. Its not unusual for the government of any nation to go to bat for its citizens, especially ones it employs.

Cables Show Germany Caved to Pressure from Washington

Same story as above, stop trying to pad the list.

WikiLeaks Exposes Rumsfeld's Lies

He lied about sectarian violence, trying to minimize its occurrence and significance. I fail to see how this is whistle blowing. Some Iraqi warlords militia killed a thousand or so people it didnt like. This was not the work of the Iraqi security forces or US troops. Do you really expect that people will never lie or spin the truth? What kind of fairy tale land do you live in.

Yemeni president lied about US strikes

OMG, Yemen lied to their own people and took responsibility for strikes the US did on legit targets to avoid domestic backlash in Yemen. This is in no way something requiring a whistle blowing.

Contrary to public statements, Obama admin fueled conflict in Yemen

The US sent ammo for small arms and artillery to Saudi forces to help them and Yemen crush a rebel force they had been fighting for years. Once again I fail to see the significance of this. Do you really expect the US government should admit to every bullet and every gun it hands out to its allies in the world? There is transparency and then there is stupidity.

...do I need to continue? Because I can.

You provided 11 links to 9 different issues. Of those 9 issues, at the most 2 could be seen as legit whistle blowing, and they arent even that huge. So 2 out of 250 000, that's not very diligent now is it. Manning I doubt read most of what he released before doing so, he just released it all in hopes maybe someone would find a nugget or two. This is why Manning is a traitor, not a whistle blower.

2 Zimbabwean generals face court martial and execution for meeting with US embassy

Ethiopian journalist flees country after his name is published in wikileaks.

Taliban kills local Elder who helped US forces

Not to mention people who would have been willing to come forward with information are with good reason going to be reluctant to come forward. Diplomats likewise will be less willing to be frank and expose corruption in the countries they work in. One ambassador was sent home because he wrote a cable detailing local police corruption.

At 10/8/12 08:34 PM, JoS wrote: Its war, shit happens. In World War 2 it was common to bomb entire cities. Not to make light of people dying but sometimes in war you have to make a call in a matter of seconds, while we get years to judge it. Also the pilot saw a guy with an RPG which can be neither confirmed nor denied by the video.

The rules of engagement require there to clear and present danger for the enagement to be justified. The pilot claimed he saw evidence of weapons, but let's look at the video.

http://i.imgur.com/XlCri.gif

This is the reuters photographer that was killed, and his camera which is said to be an RPG. This is all that is seen of the camera and what is ultimately the arbitrator of whether those people's lives end or not. It would be understandable to take immediate action if the photographer were in a ready-to-fire stance and this object were pointed at the helicopter, but there isn't any sign of any tangible immediate threat. Yet the watchout hastily goes from "he has a suspicious object" to "he has an RPG!" without anything of definitive substance. Is there any need to move to engage that quickly before more intel can be gathered to properly identify people as either civilians or combatants?

Then there's this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0#t=8m55s

Remember this line: "If we see a weapon, we're gonna engage."

CH18: Yeah, Bushmaster, we have a van that's approaching and picking up the bodies.
...

CH18: Bushmaster; Crazyhorse. We have individuals going to the scene, possibly uh picking up bodies and weapons."

Once Bushmaster gives the go-ahead to engage the people picking up the wounded, they then of course chuckle about one of the bodies being driven over by a Bradley and joke about not bringing kids to a battle. I have a hard time coming to the conclusion that this was more about eliminating an enemy threat and not satiating a trigger finger.

You've also ignored the second part of the Apache video where they fire Hellfire missiles into an apartment building and kill a completely unrelated passer because they can't be bothered to wait a handful of seconds after being given permission to engage. 2 insurgents try to surrender. The military lawyer gives the Apache clearance to murder them. They run into a building. 4 women come out waving white sheets. Apache kills all 6. There are laws of war, and those laws explicitly mention that the red cross or red crescent or the white flag are examples of "you do not fire on these people, period". Even though those people in the van were not members of the red cross/crescent, they are covered by the Geneva Conventions, which is something every member of the US forces is bound to. When you commit an act in violation of the Geneva Convention, you are committing a war crime. It's as simple as that. I understand the fog of war but it all too often seems like a convenient excuse for sociopathy. Go watch the part where an unarmed civilian attempts to render humanitarian aid to a wounded, unarmed, hors de combat dude and the soldier repeatedly lies to his superiors so he can satisfy his own bloodlust.

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

When there is a culture present, especially in insurgency warfare, that dehumanizes the opponent, it leads to these kinds of issues. And there is plenty of evidence of exactly this kind of culture not just in these videos.

You provided 11 links to 9 different issues. Of those 9 issues, at the most 2 could be seen as legit whistle blowing, and they arent even that huge. So 2 out of 250 000, that's not very diligent now is it. Manning I doubt read most of what he released before doing so, he just released it all in hopes maybe someone would find a nugget or two. This is why Manning is a traitor, not a whistle blower.

But I wasn't cherry picking articles I thought sounded the juiciest, I was merely copying and pasting articles from an article Proteas neglected to read thoroughly. A quick google search brought me this article. So I guess that's 3 out of 250,000 now. Who knows how much higher that number goes when we actually start looking at the documents leaked :O