FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


There's one Bradley Manning





jmlworld
Honestly, the army (any army) are not bunch of bad guys; of course there are brainwashed guys like those who could open a fire on newly born puppies.

But there's Bradley Manning, a brave young man who sacrificed his personal freedom for the sake of global justice and freedom of speech. He's through a rough patch in life at the moment but he has done enough to make his name worth for the good books of history.

Let's praise the guy. He knew in the first place that he'll be in for trouble when he released that sensitive data, but boy, he did set a good example. Let's hope few more army guys drawing an inspiration from Bradley Manning.

There's one Bradley Manning.
deanhills
For those who don't know Bradley Manning - Source: Wikipedia
Quote:
Bradley E. Manning (born December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was arrested in May 2010 in Iraq on suspicion of having passed restricted material to the website WikiLeaks. He was charged in July that year with transferring classified data onto his personal computer, and communicating national defense information to an unauthorized source. An additional 22 charges were preferred in March 2011, including "aiding the enemy," a capital offense, though prosecutors said they would not seek the death penalty. He currently awaits a hearing to decide whether he will face a court martial.

Personally I would hate someone like that working for me. If something is confidential, it is confidential. Period. In this case it was worse. What he did was the equivalent of a spy. Nothing noble for me in that.
jmlworld
deanhills wrote:
Personally I would hate someone like that working for me. If something is confidential, it is confidential. Period. In this case it was worse. What he did was the equivalent of a spy. Nothing noble for me in that.


But don't you think releasing the video showing army guys opening a fire on a bunch of kids was must? Don't you think anybody with common sense would do the same?
Bondings
There is a big difference in releasing/leaking confidential material because of moral grounds to expose malpractices/inustices that happened (which I guess was the army guys shooting the kids) and releasing all confidential material (in bulk) that is available.

So while exposing some stuff that was worth exposing, I don't agree with leaking everything.
jmlworld
Bondings wrote:
There is a big difference in releasing/leaking confidential material because of moral grounds to expose malpractices/inustices that happened (which I guess was the army guys shooting the kids) and releasing all confidential material (in bulk) that is available.

So while exposing some stuff that was worth exposing, I don't agree with leaking everything.


Great point Bondings. Of course it would be understandable if he could release/leak only the footage of the video about the army guys shooting the kids. But I still doubt he would get away even with this.
deanhills
jmlworld wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Personally I would hate someone like that working for me. If something is confidential, it is confidential. Period. In this case it was worse. What he did was the equivalent of a spy. Nothing noble for me in that.


But don't you think releasing the video showing army guys opening a fire on a bunch of kids was must? Don't you think anybody with common sense would do the same?
If he had done it openly, i.e. went to the media with his story and at the same time resigned his position, then I would agree with you. That would have been genuine and sincere to me. But he was feeding materials to Wikileaks over a period of time. And he was dishonest with the people he was working with. Some of them could have been his friends as well, and others could have been vulnerable as the materials could have implicated them.
ocalhoun
Bondings wrote:
There is a big difference in releasing/leaking confidential material because of moral grounds to expose malpractices/inustices that happened (which I guess was the army guys shooting the kids) and releasing all confidential material (in bulk) that is available.

So while exposing some stuff that was worth exposing, I don't agree with leaking everything.


Morally, that's exactly the case. Only leak the information that must be leaked to stop an immoral practice.

Legally, he's still on the hook, though I think this would be a great time to use the presidential pardon, at least for charges directly related to leaking about the immoral practices specifically.



Then again, there are proper channels for reporting such abuses, up through the chain of command -- and any commanders that are complicit with it can be skipped if necessary. 'Going public' should NOT be step #1.
Hello_World
Bradley Manning did what he did for the benefit of humankind and is a hero. Eternal respect to a great man.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Legally, he's still on the hook, though I think this would be a great time to use the presidential pardon, at least for charges directly related to leaking about the immoral practices specifically.
Well there's also the part about setting an example. If he gets off light, then it would make it easier for the next person to justify leaking information. Will be interesting to see what the verdict is going to be.

By the way, does the Presidential pardon really make a difference. I heard on the news that a Mexican was executed even when President Obama asked for a stay of execution on the grounds that it would violate international treaty obligations. I was really surprised. I always thought once the President has made a request that that more or less carries the weight of an order. Anyway, great to know he is not above the law. The Supreme Court apparently did not agree.

Source: Reuters
ocalhoun
I get the impression that presidential pardon only applies to federal charges...
Given that this involves the military, the commander in chief of the military should clearly have the authority to pardon.

(And what better way to show the world that you're serious about curbing the abuses inherent in war?)
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
I get the impression that presidential pardon only applies to federal charges...
Given that this involves the military, the commander in chief of the military should clearly have the authority to pardon.

(And what better way to show the world that you're serious about curbing the abuses inherent in war?)
OK got it Ocalhoun. Thanks for the correction. Do you think however that is realistically feasible, given that that must be an area where tough discipline is usually implemented? I'm curious too, do you recall any instance where there has been a military pardon?
Smile

Edit: OK I Googled it, and came up with the following interesting "pardon". It is an amazing one. The President pardons the Defense Secretary. President Bush in 1992 pardoned Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and others for their conduct related to the Iran-contra affair.

I looked for pardons by the US Secretary of Defense and could not find any. Could be that they were done without media coverage? I checked the DOD Website, and found nothing, but did find some interesting jobs that are advertised. I guess the one that would be relevant for this thread would be the one for FRAUD INVESTIGATIVE TECH for the US Criminal Investigation Command. Or if one wants to make more than 80,000 USD, an Intelligence Officer with the Defense Intelligence Agency. Wow, at least one Department that has plenty of jobs on offer. And all of them current advertisements.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
jmlworld wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Personally I would hate someone like that working for me. If something is confidential, it is confidential. Period. In this case it was worse. What he did was the equivalent of a spy. Nothing noble for me in that.


But don't you think releasing the video showing army guys opening a fire on a bunch of kids was must? Don't you think anybody with common sense would do the same?
If he had done it openly, i.e. went to the media with his story and at the same time resigned his position, then I would agree with you. That would have been genuine and sincere to me. But he was feeding materials to Wikileaks over a period of time. And he was dishonest with the people he was working with. Some of them could have been his friends as well, and others could have been vulnerable as the materials could have implicated them.


Unfortunately the media in this country is part of the problem "/

In what way was he dishonest with his co-workers? Obviously he wasn't going to announce that he was leaking information to external sources.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
In what way was he dishonest with his co-workers? Obviously he wasn't going to announce that he was leaking information to external sources.
Right. So the materials he leaked had nothing to do with his co-workers, and did not involve them at all?

If I were to leak information where I am, and there is an investigation, then my co-workers would be automatically investigated and questioned, as we are part of a team, right? We often share information with one another, particularly if we have spent a lot of time together and worked on projects together. So when it is discovered that one of us had been leaking information that we had been working on together, surely some of us would feel betrayed?
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
In what way was he dishonest with his co-workers? Obviously he wasn't going to announce that he was leaking information to external sources.
Right. So the materials he leaked had nothing to do with his co-workers, and did not involve them at all?

If I were to leak information where I am, and there is an investigation, then my co-workers would be automatically investigated and questioned, as we are part of a team, right? We often share information with one another, particularly if we have spent a lot of time together and worked on projects together. So when it is discovered that one of us had been leaking information that we had been working on together, surely some of us would feel betrayed?


The citizenry of a democratically-elected, representative government has a right to know what's going on behind the scenes, provided the information will not likely lead to immediate harm to others (I don't consider a co-worker feeling a little bummed out to be harm).

I'm not seeing what the big deal is. So some of his co-workers didn't have the courage to stand up as he did. Some of his co-workers feel a little taken advantage of. I don't think that's really his problem; he did the right thing.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
I'm not seeing what the big deal is. So some of his co-workers didn't have the courage to stand up as he did. Some of his co-workers feel a little taken advantage of. I don't think that's really his problem; he did the right thing.
I don't agree. If something is wrong, you report it to someone you're working for. You don't start a slow leak of strategically important information to an organization that is out to find rot in how the Government does its business. If he felt that he would have been victimized he could easily have resigned and then released the information to the media in one big bang, or preferably send it to the highest hierarchy in the US Government. Now that I would have called brave and honorable. Earning a salary from your employer while you are stabbing them in the back to me is dishonest in the extreme. It does not look as though he is a very balanced person either. If the reports about him in Wikipedia are correct, he seemed to have been a bit of an odd ball and had serious tiffs with a number of his colleagues accusing them of all kinds of things.

Quote:
While at Fort Drum, Manning had already begun to lose control, according to Steve Fishman in New York magazine, falling out with roommates, and screaming at superior officers. He said he was being bullied for being gay, and by August 2009 had been referred to an Army mental-health counsellor.[11] In October 2009, despite the doubts about his fitness to be deployed, he was sent to Iraq with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team of the 10th Mountain Division, based at Forward Operating Base Hammer, near Baghdad. His unhappiness and loneliness continued there. Analysts were working 14–15 hours at a time in what he described as "a dimly lit room crowded to the point you cant move an inch without having to quietly say ‘excuse me sir,’ ‘pardon me sergeant major’  ... cables trip you up everywhere, papers stacked everywhere ..." He called it Groundhog Day.[12]
Related topics
Which American Football team goes to Super Bowl
Clasic Milton games
Fantasy football !!
Eagles V Chargers
The best team in NHL.
Reggie Bush
Enemy Press
Here's why the Colts will win out
Cowboys or Giants
Pats vs. Chargers
Ethics of wikileaks.
the great fear of almost every person
What the bible actually says
If you needed to perform psychological warfare...?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.