Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/21/13 10:31 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Manning Sentenced to 36 years.

A sad day for all.

At 8/21/13 10:48 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 8/21/13 10:46 AM, Light wrote:

At 8/21/13 10:31 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Manning Sentenced to 36 years.

A sad day for all.

then the 20 years added for pleading guilty for the 18 lesser charges.

I know that the man is technically a criminal, but I'd love to see him receive a pardon from the president on all charges.

But I don't expect that to happen.

At 8/21/13 10:58 AM, Light wrote: I know that the man is technically a criminal, but I'd love to see him receive a pardon from the president on all charges.

If Nixon got a full pardon for Watergate, you would think that someone like Manning would get a pardon too. Not exactly.

What Manning done may have good intentions in mind, {at least to him} he clearly violated the UCMJ and espionage laws when he leaked out classified documents, which is a potential danger to innocent people and other soldiers if it got to the wrong hands. While it may be hypothetical, you can't put people in any more danger by leaking confidential material when they have no business being leaked in the first place.

This isn't a freedom of speech, privacy or anything like that. It's simply just another case of good intentions going to hell, and one person getting 35 years in jail for a major crime {while in an Army uniform no less}, is still better than thousands of innocent people dead or in fear from a terrorist attack.

At 8/21/13 11:25 AM, orangebomb wrote:

At 8/21/13 10:58 AM, Light wrote: I know that the man is technically a criminal, but I'd love to see him receive a pardon from the president on all charges.

If Nixon got a full pardon for Watergate, you would think that someone like Manning would get a pardon too. Not exactly.

What Manning done may have good intentions in mind, {at least to him} he clearly violated the UCMJ and espionage laws when he leaked out classified documents, which is a potential danger to innocent people and other soldiers if it got to the wrong hands. While it may be hypothetical, you can't put people in any more danger by leaking confidential material when they have no business being leaked in the first place.

True.

But it is my understanding that some of the stuff leaked reveals what would amount to war crimes on the U.S.'s part.

This isn't a freedom of speech, privacy or anything like that. It's simply just another case of good intentions going to hell, and one person getting 35 years in jail for a major crime {while in an Army uniform no less}, is still better than thousands of innocent people dead or in fear from a terrorist attack.

If he did actually endanger the lives of many, then you're right.

At 8/21/13 11:14 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 8/21/13 10:58 AM, Light wrote: I know that the man is technically a criminal, but I'd love to see him receive a pardon from the president on all charges.

right Obama may be a idiot but not that big of a idiot he's caused Obama alot of trouble.

Obama's a fairly intelligent man. His policies may be objectionable, but he's no idiot.

At 8/21/13 10:48 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 8/21/13 10:46 AM, Light wrote:

At 8/21/13 10:31 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Manning Sentenced to 36 years.

A sad day for all.

then the 20 years added for pleading guilty for the 18 lesser charges.

21/8/13 will go down as the day Tony lost any rights to bitch about the lack of public accountability in the US Military .

At 8/21/13 12:19 PM, AxTekk wrote: 21/8/13 will go down as the day Tony lost any rights to bitch about the lack of public accountability in the US Military .

The Manning issue has nothing to do with accountability in the military. It has everything to do with trying to do the right thing for the wrong reasons in the worst way possible. (Think killing someone to keep them from stealing your wallet.)

At 8/21/13 12:27 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 8/21/13 12:19 PM, AxTekk wrote: 21/8/13 will go down as the day Tony lost any rights to bitch about the lack of public accountability in the US Military .

The Manning issue has nothing to do with accountability in the military. It has everything to do with trying to do the right thing for the wrong reasons in the worst way possible. (Think killing someone to keep them from stealing your wallet.)

Don't get me wrong, Manning deserves time for doing this in a way that put men on the field at risk, I just don't think it deserves half a lifetime behind bars. I think it's more about intimidating would-be whistleblowers than encouraging them to use a safer avenue. (Perhaps sending the documents directly to a responsible media outlet, if that isn't an oxymoron.)

At 8/21/13 01:35 PM, AxTekk wrote: Don't get me wrong, Manning deserves time for doing this in a way that put men on the field at risk, I just don't think it deserves half a lifetime behind bars.

Compared to what Manning was faced with earlier in the trial, 35 years in jail for illegal espionage doesn't seem half bad by comparison. You just don't put your own soldiers under the bus like he did and possibly put innocent lives in danger just to leak certain documents because you think it's the right thing to do, The UCMJ clearly states this for a reason.

I think it's more about intimidating would-be whistleblowers than encouraging them to use a safer avenue. (Perhaps sending the documents directly to a responsible media outlet, if that isn't an oxymoron.)

There will still be whistle blowers out there who are defiant enough to break the law in order to point out what they think is an injustice. The problem is that whistle blowers like Snowden and Manning broke the law to spill secrets when they weren't supposed to, and they claim it's to defend our freedoms, when in reality, much of it ranges from isolated incidents to a necessary evil.

At 8/21/13 01:56 PM, orangebomb wrote: There will still be whistle blowers out there who are defiant enough to break the law in order to point out what they think is an injustice. The problem is that whistle blowers like Snowden and Manning broke the law to spill secrets when they weren't supposed to, and they claim it's to defend our freedoms, when in reality, much of it ranges from isolated incidents to a necessary evil.

Ok, just to cut right through this - would you want whistle blowers to exist at all? If so what avenues would you have them encouraged to use? My problem with this isn't that I think Bradley Manning was right to put active personnel in the line of fire. It's that this seems to have become about intimidating whistleblowers rather than punishing them for taking the wrong avenue, or not waiting for an acceptable period of time to pass.

At 8/21/13 01:35 PM, AxTekk wrote: Don't get me wrong, Manning deserves time for doing this in a way that put men on the field at risk, I just don't think it deserves half a lifetime behind bars.

If he'd only released one memo, yeah. However he released thousands of pages of documents. So you have to multiply the relatively small crime of a single leak by the amount of items he leaked.

I think it's more about intimidating would-be whistleblowers than encouraging them to use a safer avenue. (Perhaps sending the documents directly to a responsible media outlet, if that isn't an oxymoron.)

Manning and Snowden are not whistleblowers. They held items of national security. So unlike a corporate whistleblower, or even a generaic governmental whistleblower, they are not allowed to indiscriminately give these serets out. There is one better way to get these secrets dealt with without jeoprdizing national security. That is the reveal them to a congressmember. Even though many Congress members are complicit, there are always a select few who are not. Manning and Snowden could have contaced...

Drum roll...

RAND PAUL.

Seriously, if they'd informed him to the exact nature of their grievances he would have been able to (and likely would have relished the opportunity to) bring the issue into the forefront, while at the same time judicially releasing the information as to reveal the least amount of national security related secrets as possible to get the information out.

So in short, these two men went well beyond the means of all reasonsibility and prudence to disclose an issue they could have just as easily done in a reasonable and prudent manner. By doing so they committed a crime and automatically turned a large portion of the population against their message. (they pulled an OWS)

Hey Camarohusky, you're a lawyer, so I was curious: If Rand Paul obtained this info from Manning and Snowden and released at least some of this information(No reason not to believe that he wouldn't, being the super libertarian that he is), how exactly would he be able to avoid prosecution? It's my understanding that there's a clause in the Constitution that gives members of Congress some kind of beefed-up version of freedom of speech; it protects them against slander and libel charges when speaking in Congress. Does that clause apply here or what?

You are referring to congressional immunity under the speech or debate clause. You can say anything, even leak highly sensitive and classified information. The Speech and Debate Clause gives legislators absolute immunity as long as they are on the floor.

At 8/21/13 03:03 PM, Light wrote: Hey Camarohusky, you're a lawyer, so I was curious:

I don't know, as it's a very unique part of law I have no experience with it. Chances are what Feoric says is correct.

However, that's not what I was getting at, though it may bolster the point (though the limitation to the floor of Congress is a very big limitation). My idea was that a Congressman is in a position to properly and appropriately weigh the dangers and the benefits of releasing the information. Also, A Congressman is under a sworn duty to defend the people as well as the Constitution, whereas Snowden and Manning only were sworn (if they took the oath, which I assume as government workers they did) to uphold the Constitution. In short, a Congressman, by the nature of their position, is in a proper position to recieve and disseminate such information.

Frankly, I see only three types of people in a position to reveal such information: Congressman, High level executive brach officials (appointees and up), and non-contract foreigners. I give the latter the ability for two reasons. First, they have no duty to keep it quiet. Second, if a lay foreigner can figure it out, then it's not really that much of a national secret.

Anyone else is either violating their duty to their country as a US citizen, resident, or guest, or is violating some other duty (treaty, alliance, contract).

At 8/21/13 03:30 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

However, that's not what I was getting at, though it may bolster the point (though the limitation to the floor of Congress is a very big limitation). My idea was that a Congressman is in a position to properly and appropriately weigh the dangers and the benefits of releasing the information. Also, A Congressman is under a sworn duty to defend the people as well as the Constitution, whereas Snowden and Manning only were sworn (if they took the oath, which I assume as government workers they did) to uphold the Constitution. In short, a Congressman, by the nature of their position, is in a proper position to recieve and disseminate such information.

Understandable.

At 8/21/13 03:14 PM, Feoric wrote: You are referring to congressional immunity under the speech or debate clause. You can say anything, even leak highly sensitive and classified information. The Speech and Debate Clause gives legislators absolute immunity as long as they are on the floor.

I see. So it would definitely have been a good idea for Snowden and/or Manning to somehow contact Senator Paul to persuade him to leak at least some of this information.

Thanks Camaro and Feoric for answering my questions.

It's funny how the 36 years that Manning got is almost exactly ten times the three years, seven months and about eight days that Calley spent under house arrest for having his men slaughter at least 347 Vietnamese civilians at My Lai. Just to put things in perspective.

Another gem that I saw some user post in the comments section of a BBC article about this was: "when exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime, you are ruled by criminals".

At 8/21/13 02:08 PM, AxTekk wrote: Ok, just to cut right through this - would you want whistle blowers to exist at all?

I don't mind whistle blowing, as long as their is enough credible and tangible evidence of a crime being committed, and it's done by legal means. Camaro already gave an example, talk to a Congressman about it, because chances are that a few of them would take up on it. Both Manning and Snowden didn't do that for whatever reason, which not only makes them hypocrites, {intentional or not} but criminals as well.

At least Manning is taking his punishment, whereas Snowden is hiding in Russia where they have far less rights and liberties than America. Ironic isn't it?

If so what avenues would you have them encouraged to use? My problem with this isn't that I think Bradley Manning was right to put active personnel in the line of fire. It's that this seems to have become about intimidating whistleblowers rather than punishing them for taking the wrong avenue, or not waiting for an acceptable period of time to pass.

That's just it, there is a time and a place for whistle blowing, and an avenue to do said whistle blowing if they so choose. Once again, the problem is that they did it illegally due to the UCMJ for Manning and the Espionage Act for Snowden. When you release the sheer number of classified documents like these two did, there is a possibility that some of that material can get into the wrong hands, and the shit would hit the fan.

Besides, the Manning trial isn't going to stop anymore whistle blowers anymore than the death penalty in Texas would deter murderers. If they feel like something isn't on the up and up, they will spill anything to prove their point, even if it was illegal or immoral. How the populace would treat it is clearly depends on the situation and the truth involved, which tends to cloud everything up for numerous reasons.

At 8/21/13 04:50 PM, orangebomb wrote: I don't mind whistle blowing, as long as (...) it's done by legal means.

Maybe Manning could have contacted a Congressman, and by doins so he would have completely stayed on the good side of the law. Maybe then three women would have come forward and say they've been raped by Manning, and he he would have gone to jail anyway, where he'd have been charged with taking part in a riot and in the end would have spent 36 years in prison anyway.

I mean, you know that the adversaries of Manning and (especially) Snowden don't play by the rules, one of the revelations of the latter was specifically that they had broken the rules thousands of times. I'm really struggling to see why you believe that institutions (and by that I mean the whole US security apparatus) that don't care about violating the rights of millions of Americans would care even one bit about the rights of a whistleblower.

Besides, the Manning trial isn't going to stop anymore whistle blowers anymore than the death penalty in Texas would deter murderers.

The main lesson for whistleblowers here is that if you're going to take on the US security agencies, you'd better be in Ecuador or Russia when you do it.

At 8/21/13 05:10 PM, lapis wrote: The main lesson for whistleblowers here is that if you're going to take on the US security agencies, you'd better be in Ecuador or Russia when you do it.

Oddly enough, if you're going to take on especially Russia's security agencies, you better be in the US when you do it.

At 8/21/13 05:23 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 8/21/13 05:10 PM, lapis wrote: The main lesson for whistleblowers here is that if you're going to take on the US security agencies, you'd better be in Ecuador or Russia when you do it.

Oddly enough, if you're going to take on especially Russia's security agencies, you better be in the US when you do it.

I wouldn't go to the UK either.

At 8/21/13 05:46 PM, lapis wrote: I wouldn't go to the UK either.

England isn't very nice for some reason.

Just to be sure: I didn't mention Ecuador and Russia with the intention of making them look like free speech havens compared to the US. I'm just saying that by clamping down on Manning the US authorities are actually incentivising whistleblowers who may have some doubts about the integrity of the American judicial system to leave the country. And that's something to think about. That is, unless CIA operatives are as I'm typing this putting Polonium-210 in Snowden's spaghetti.

At 8/21/13 05:56 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 8/21/13 05:46 PM, lapis wrote: I wouldn't go to the UK either.

England isn't very nice for some reason.

It's the bad weather, makes people easy to irritate.