Bradley manning, hero or villian?

[Vegosiux]

Why do you insist it must be according to anyone? Had to be done does not explain why all the information released was relevant to crimes.

Because I suspect you are asking me to "indisputably, objectively" show how it had be done, in a way that any rational person would have to conclude that it indeed had to be done. And you know there is no such consensus since interpretations of the incident differ vastly from person to person. And I suspect that you're trying to play that card in order to undermine my analogy that talked about misplaced anger, yet you're desperately struggling with a misdirection in order to make it look like I meant it to be about crime

Actually, yes, objective necessity can exist. When we're talking about what is necessary to achieve a certain goal, set within certain parameters. Like you're given a ton of information, how much do you need to release to reveal crimes? All of it? That the President drank a glass of water on Tuesday would not be relevant, for example. We can objectively rule that out. We can look at each diplomatic cable and see if it actually involves a crime for instance. If it's just diplomats keeping information of policy or intent from people, well guess what? That's not a crime, it doesn't need to be released. You're muddying the issue more than it really is.

You know what? Maybe you should just go tit for tat with your government. You're entitled to know about all the phone calls and dinner dates of your government officials if they feel entitled to record yours. Which, according to another whistleblower, they seem to.

 

[Vegosiux]

What makes the U.S. so damn special? There's nothing we do that justifies the war crimes Manning exposes. If anything, the fact that our government is willing to do such atrocities shows it is they who deserve contempt. This type of fanatic nationalism is what leads to dictatorships. Do you really want to pave the way for this generations Fascist party?

The US has been getting away with it for at least 67 years 11 months and 27 days.

Which is...not that long, is it? I mean...sure the historical cycles are shortened as spread of information gets faster and faster, but just short of 70 years isn't a long time to be getting away with anything, if you look back at most historical powers.

 

[Vegosiux]

Suspect away, it isn't true. I'm just asking that you show that those things had to be compromised as well to reveal all the crimes. The anger is not misplaced if he didn't need to compromise those as well. I'm asking you to show that it is misplaced by showing that all he did was the equivalent of revealing crimes. It's the difference between telling someone's wife they cheated on her, and telling someone's wife they cheated on her then telling everyone at work what porn sites he's visited at home.

If you do that you might be a bit of a dick. But the other guy still cheated on his wife and trying to misdirect from that by going "Hey, that guy is a dick!"

But, this changes the initial situation a bit. If the anger is directed not at the act of revealing information itself, but the scope of such an act, arguments are different. From the post I quoted, it was not clear which one it was.

Is that even supposed to be a serious position or just a joke? There are plenty of valid reasons for them to not divulge all that information. Just saying "While they do it to us!" looks just like you're deciding to just say ridiculous things at me because you're displeased.

It's kind of halfway between the two, leaning on the serious side. While I don't seriously expect anything like that has any chance to happen, I maintain the position that information should be subject to equivalent exchange too. If an entity expects me to divulge information an trust the with it, they need to show some willingness to do the same. If they outright spy on me, I'll get cranky. To use one of my favorite game quotes; Beware of him who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

So why I don't seriously think there's grounds for a full disclosure, I also think that if they go and spy on people, they might as well disclose what they're doing with all that information.

 

[ecoho]

I think hes an idiot nothing more nothing less. yes what he exposed was well, bad would be an understatement but he did it the wrong way and for the wrong reasons. If he actually cared he would have approached a congressman who would then have the events investigated and the appropriate punishments would have taken place, instead he goes and just flaunts the info to everyone so that everyone knows hes the one who blew the whistle.(and before someone chimes in with the whole "the government would just hide this and not do anything" please go watch the news for 10 mins cause politicians turn on each other like ravenous sharks when they see blood in the water.)

 

[jpoon]

Glad he did it, at least some have the balls to speak out against the utter bullshit the military is doing out there. Not a criminal, not a villain at all. Just an american that's has the guts to put his own life in the crossfire. We need more like him.

 

[SuperSuperSuperGuy]

This here is a mess. I don't think governments should have to keep secrets in the first place, apart from, y'know, future plans that will not cause the deaths of any innocent people. The government keeps these things secret because they know it'd upset the public if they knew, which is precisely the reason why they shouldn't be happening at all. It's not right. In fact, I think it's a little childish. I think that the only secrets should ones that are actually kept for the sake of the people, not ones that are just kept for the sake of covering up what the military and government have done.

This guy isn't a villain at all. As things stand, I think hero's a bit of a strong word, but he is something along those lines.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

He did what was right. I understand the response by the United States government against him, in that all governments try to protect their sensitive documents. However, it's too bad they have responded in that way.

 

[YicklePigeon]

I think hes an idiot nothing more nothing less. yes what he exposed was well, bad would be an understatement but he did it the wrong way and for the wrong reasons. If he actually cared he would have approached a congressman who would then have the events investigated and the appropriate punishments would have taken place, instead he goes and just flaunts the info to everyone so that everyone knows hes the one who blew the whistle.(and before someone chimes in with the whole "the government would just hide this and not do anything" please go watch the news for 10 mins cause politicians turn on each other like ravenous sharks when they see blood in the water.)

Pvt. Manning had contacted The New York Times (incidentally the same paper that ran the Pentagon Papers), Politico and The Washington Post before going to Wikileaks (source The Huffington Post, 28th February 2013 [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/bradley-manning-ny-times-washington-post-politico-wikileaks_n_2782539.html]).

Further, Pvt. Manning didn't flaunt the information so that everyone knew it was him. Instead, he had asked for help from a former hacker who turned him in (source: New York Times, 7th June 2010 [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/world/08leaks.html?ref=bradleyemanning]). That's right, this has been going on for more than three years.

Additionally, no politician in their right mind (assuming they have one) would investigate the "great US military complex" with it's rape culture, homophobia, that it commits mindless atrocities and with all that money invested in it (oh and the many private contractors also)... so to investigate on the word of a Private who could only prove he was right by leaking classified material? If I was in Pvt. Manning's position, I wouldn't have went that route either and, indeed, would have went to the press as well.

And this [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/middleeast/06baghdad.html?ref=world] is a link to the New York Times' article on that particular video.

 

[Signa]

Hero for sure. Oaths to service are meaningless when you find yourself working for the most deranged, dangerous, and powerful force on the planet. Ok, ok, that might be a little over the top in describing the US military, but that video really disturbed me when I saw it a few years ago. That one solider that was anxious to murder those civilians should be hanged. There will be no justice for Bradley, and that makes me weep for my country.

 

[SuperSuperSuperGuy]

This here is a mess. I don't think governments should have to keep secrets in the first place, apart from, y'know, future plans that will not cause the deaths of any innocent people. The government keeps these things secret because they know it'd upset the public if they knew, which is precisely the reason why they shouldn't be happening at all. It's not right. In fact, I think it's a little childish. I think that the only secrets should ones that are actually kept for the sake of the people, not ones that are just kept for the sake of covering up what the military and government have done.

This guy isn't a villain at all. As things stand, I think hero's a bit of a strong word, but he is something along those lines.

Uh huh, you honestly think the only secrets are there to not make the public upset? Right let's go tell everyone where we keep our nukes, make military bases open to the public, give out the President's schedule o the Internet and tell the exact details of his security. They obviously only keep secrets so the public won't be upset.

Perhaps I worded it wrong. I didn't say they shouldn't keep secrets at all. In fact, some secrets actually do benefit the public, such as not revealing where nuclear weaponry is stored, or telling everyone security secrets. There comes a point, however, where secrets stop being for the good of the public and start being for the good of the government, and things that are kept secret for this reason, such as war atrocities and stuff like that, shouldn't even happen in the first place.

Really, my problem stems more from attempts to cover up bad things that have happened in the past than anything else. It's very much a "no one knows about it, so it never happened" sort of mentality, which I, personally, am very much against.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

What he did was wrong, or at least against the law. That said, sometimes what isn't lawful might be the right thing to do, BUT I think you do need to face the consequences. Also just because no one has been harmed through any direct connection to those leaks doesn't mean that no one was put in danger, and it doesn't change the fact that the leaked information did end up in the hands of the enemy (well, provided the enemy can access the internet).

Also he should've leaked it to anyone but Julian Assange, and I think he tried, but I just don't like the concept of WikiLeaks. It's a who watches the watchmen kind of thing, though maybe it needs an extra layer of "who watches" to apply to them?

Essentially this.
It was against the law, but that doesn't mean it was morally "wrong" (or at least not 100%)
Whether the law is "right" is up for debate.

He leaked information. Not in attempt to harm anyone, but since leaks CAN be used to harm people, they can't just say "it's okay." But this DOES NOT mean he is instantly a traitor, we simply need to give him due process.

Same with Snowden really. Albeit Snowden looks more guilty because he fled, but whether or not he is justified in his lack of faith in our justice system is up to opinion. Manning stayed and faced trial.

The label of traitor is a misnomer.

"One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason."

They betrayed the trust of their organizations, but they DID it in support of the cause of what they believed in. They acted against parts of their country in favor of it.

If they had accepted bribes for the information, I would not feel any sympathy for them, but other than the focus they have gotten, they have not gained.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

I don't beleive anyone here has the right or the authority to comment on this subject. No one here works in that kind of environment or knows the truth. No one here understands the US military targeting directives or doctrine, and no one has seen the whole picture, just some out of context gumpf poted on the internet... Some people see a snippit of weapon systems video, and think they are RoE experts...

He willingly and knowingly broke the law... That's all I need to know that he is a giant tosser.

EDIT: Oh... and as a note, it is not illegal to kill civilians in a war, only to target them. If you target a combatant and some non combatants die in the process this is not murder, it is collateral. These engagements are cleared by specially trained, high ranking individuals using a wealth of knowledge at their disposal. Any doubt and a Cdr won't clear the engagement, mostly out of fear of the repurcussions if it was the wrong call. At ALL times in this process a lawyer is present and has to also clear the engagement on a legal basis.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Loyalty to your country above all else.

Oh, you're one of those people who don't understand how the system works. Great.
Personally, I think that patriotism is a disease.

 

[Alandoril]

I don't understand why people are so uptight about soldiers potentially being put in danger. They fight, they kill and they die for money. How, when and why is largely irrelevant.

Strange to call someone a traitor for betraying the state as well, since America was founded by traitors.

 

[Dimitriov]

My opinion on this sort of case (and that wacky Edward Snowden too) is that what Manning did was ethically right, and that these are things that the public should know. However, it is also kind of treason. And they have to be willing to accept the consequences of that if they decide to spill their own government's secrets.

After all honesty IS important and that includes being honest to your own employers and government when you agree not to give away their secrets.

After all every country has secrets, and spilling your own country's secrets while other country's get to keep theirs just doesn't sit terribly well with me.

 

[Esotera]

Where do you get that he was tortured?

And the US government isn't doing anything more or less than any other government in the world. They are just the biggest and so more eyes are constantly on them.

He was placed in solitary confinement and stripped naked for pretty much a year. The UN has recognised that this is cruel & inhumane punishment and this will reduce the final sentence by a couple of years.

 

[Alandoril]

It was his obligation according to the fuckin' law to report those crimes. But since no one did anything about it what was he supposed to do? Stay silent while the military goes around committing war crimes? He didn't do anything wrong.

My honest feeling is that Manning is a traitor and betrayed the his oath of service. His action may have put the safety of service men in danger.

It's because of opinions like these that the government is able to do whatever the fuck it wants. Please, explain to me how exactly did he endanger anyone, and what is so treacherous about being a whistleblower and exposing fuckin' war crimes? Without people like Bradley Manning the government would be able to do whatever the hell it wants and no one would ever know. You should be thanking the man.
You actually swallowed the bullshit that the media served you about him? The same media outlets that refused Manning's leaked info. Good journalists would take that information in a heartbeat and publish it. Only the government puppets wouldn't. And that's who you chose to side with?

As a private your duty is to follow the orders your superiors give.

As a solider he took an oath that he wiling betrayed.

You will not change my mind on this topic.

Loyalty to your country above all else.

The whole thing begs a serious question too, which is the bigger traitor to you as a citizen, the government killing innocent people in your name or the individual who exposes it?

If it benefits my country then I do not care. What Manning did negatively affected my country and a betrayal of his oath. HE is a traitor.

I'm sure the Nazis were just following orders as well. Blind obedience is never an excuse or reason for turning a blind eye.

It is your duty to follow orders, IF in good conscience you feel they are the right orders to follow. But if they are obviously malicious in nature then you actually have a duty to disobey them.

Do you honestly believe that those in power care about you or any other citizen? They only care about keeping themselves in positions of authority and influence. They do not deserve your loyalty.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

I don't understand why people are so uptight about soldiers potentially being put in danger. They fight, they kill and they die for money. How, when and why is largely irrelevant.

This is fact. It's a soldiers job to do that. In any war, casulties are factored into planning, and if the objectives outweigh the losses then it is probably a successful plan.

On a different subject, it annoys me the ammout of civilians out there who think they know more about my job than me, and think that they have the moral highground because they don't work for the military. Our job is highly complex, and it took me 4 years of solid training to get to the basic standard to comprehend and understand the decisions that are made, how they are made, and to contribute to those decisions myself.
I don't go round to other people, with no knowledge of their processes or what there job entails, and tell them what to do, or that they are doing it wrong... or do I try and discredit their workplace... meh. I welcome criticism, but only from informed people!

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

I don't beleive anyone here has the right or the authority to comment on this subject. No one here works in that kind of environment or knows the truth. No one here understands the US military targeting directives or doctrine, and no one has seen the whole picture, just some out of context gumpf poted on the internet... Some people see a snippit of weapon systems video, and think they are RoE experts...

He willingly and knowingly broke the law... That's all I need to know that he is a giant tosser.

EDIT: Oh... and as a note, it is not illegal to kill civilians in a war, only to target them. If you target a combatant and some non combatants die in the process this is not murder, it is collateral. These engagements are cleared by specially trained, high ranking individuals using a wealth of knowledge at their disposal. Any doubt and a Cdr won't clear the engagement, mostly out of fear of the repurcussions if it was the wrong call. At ALL times in this process a lawyer is present and has to also clear the engagement on a legal basis.

Feel free to explain why a helicopter gunship should be allowed to destroy a group of civilians with no repercussions, go ahead.

I'm sure my weak, ill-informed civilian non-military brain will have severe trouble understanding your military targeting doctrine, but I'll do my best.

Because of the build up of evidence against the individuals in the situation. They don't just fly around attacking people without clearance... There were individuals there who were known insurgents. I don't know much about that particular incident, but from the images it looks like a typical Senior Leader, by the weapons they had and the posturing, and with the other evidence they would have had it was a legal engagement against a known threat. Whether you like it or not...

Do you think it was all on the pilot? Do you think they just let Apaches fly off to find and kill stuff without having senior commanders in the loop?

 

[Flatfrog]

it was reckless, immoral, and most likely ended up getting some of those who worked with NATO killed. I have no sympathy for him in regards to his conviction or punishment.

This is in clear contrast to the collateral murder video, where US forces opened fire on civilians and their rescuers, and definitely killed them. You're right, he's such a bad guy (reckless AND immoral) for exposing that to the world.

My feeling is that Manning was justified in releasing everything except the diplomatic cables. The leaks of the helicopter video and other cover-ups were genuine, direct evidence of wrong-doing by the military which deserved to be exposed.

The diplomatic cables were a different matter. Manning just got hold of a bunch of secret information and decided to release it to the world, *just in case* there was something juicy there. It was a huge info-dump of a large amount of mostly innocuous conversation, and Manning left it up to WikiLeaks and the press to look through it, see if they could find anything important and release it - and of course once it was out there, it was only a matter of time before the entire unredacted information became public, including some genuinely sensitive material. And while there were a few important discoveries there (including evidence that the US had been spying on its allies) most of the 'revelations' that came out were no more than embarrassing gossip. So yes, I think on balance more harm than good came out of releasing the cables and it was irresponsible.

But all that being said, does Manning deserve the treatment he's received? Absolutely not. He broke the law, but he was not guilty of 'espionage' by any sensible definition, since he wasn't working for any other group or country.