Skip to main content

View Diary: CNN Losing Bradley Manning Story: Manning Was Reporting a War Crime, "The Van Thing" (286 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The trouble I have with this case is that he (9+ / 0-)

    disclosed more information to wikileaks than he could possibly have reviewed. I'm not wild about the way he was treated but he seems to be guilty of something.

    •  Hmmm. (28+ / 0-)

      Ever want to take something out of context and run with it?  Because I'm going to do that now.  I know I'm not being fair to you, but I have to say this:

      These words, in this order, scare the hell out of me:

      he seems to be guilty of something.
      Okay, I'm done.  

      I know you're not a knee-jerk "lock him up, who cares why, he's probably guilty anyway" drooling fascist loon.  I get the feeling there's something more specific behind that statement, like, "Those cables turned out to contain X, which from what I understand isn't supposed to be disclosed, so I'm guessing he committed a crime there," or something like that, and I'm just missing it.  Am I correct?

      •  To clarify -- (3+ / 0-)

        I'm not weighing in one way or the other regarding Manning in that comment.  Every time I think I know what to believe about this case, I think, "but on the other hand..."

        •  gee I can't decide (4+ / 0-)

          continue committing war crimes, "but on the other hand", stop the war and therefore also the war crimes.

          Gee what a tough decision.

          •  Gee, what a simplistic interpretation. (4+ / 0-)
            •  right and wrong when it comes to prosecuting (0+ / 0-)

              illegal immoral wars is simple, no interpretation necessary.

              Don't like having war crimes leaked?  Don't have optional wars (with their predictable war crimes) for something other than self defense.

              •  Who are you talking to? (0+ / 0-)

                You've been insulting, you've been simplistic (not the same as "simple"), but in your zeal to show off how moral you are, you haven't responded to anything I've actually said.

                Maybe you're better than this in other diaries -- I have no idea.  But in this one there have been moments where you've treated the comments section like The Donoevil Show, showing off with cute little zingers and bumper sticker comments rather than engaging in mature and intelligent discussion -- which is interesting, given the difficult questions Bradley Manning's case poses.  And yes, despite your insistence that it's simple, the reality is that anyone who knows there's a world outside his or her own head knows that teasing out the larger rights and wrongs in this requires serious thought.  

                Shorter version:  Purposeful denial of complexity is not insight.  

                So here:  are we a nation of laws, or of men?  I say we're a nation of laws.

                But laws themselves are not always moral.  What if men break laws for a moral purpose?  Should the punishment be different if the law is broken for a moral reason?

                Which raises this question: who decides whether the law was broken for a moral purpose, or for a selfish, amoral one?  You?  Paul Ryan?  Bernie Sanders?  Me?

                If a person is given the authority to say a law was broken for a moral reason, so it's okay, don't we become a nation of men rather than of laws?  

                If that's bad, then we can only consider whether someone broke a law, but not why.  Isn't that dehumanizing?

                Would you get rid of government secrecy entirely?  If not, where do you think maintaining secrecy is a good idea?

                As a responsible citizen, how do I answer these questions about my country, and about the people I vote for or against, and how do I reconcile any contradictions?

                And last but not least:  do you finally understand how my original "on the one hand, but on the other hand" comment went completely over your head?

      •  If he gave wikileaks what it is said that he did, (12+ / 0-)

        i.e. everything he could get, then he is guilty of something.

        Not all of the facts are in evidence at this time. The allegations are serious if true.

        I signed an NDA when I left the Army. You can peruse my comments and you will not find any substantive comments regarding the Pershing missile system that are not clearly in the public domain.

        I congratulate Manning for disclosing a clear crime. The problem is that he used a blunderbuss . . .

        •  I think the chilling part referred to above (14+ / 0-)

          is you don't get Presumed Innocence.

          You (and I might add the current President) have presumed guilt, without a trial. Obama called him guilty long ago.

          You brush off unlimited detention so easily.

          Another flaw in the human character is that everybody wants to build and nobody wants to do maintenance. Kurt Vonnegut

          by ToKnowWhy on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 12:14:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The difficulty is that there are two cases. (5+ / 0-)

            One is that he is obviously guilty.

            I suspect that this is the actual case.

            The other case is that he is being railroaded.

            At this time he is offering a claim of innocence on the worst charges though he has admitted guilt on minor charges.

            I'm willing at this time to see the difference split.

            •  He's "obviously guilty" because someone (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Brown Thrasher, aliasalias, FloraLine

              at Wired has chat logs and they claim Manning was one of the participants?

              I'm not sure you know what "obviously" means.

              "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

              by JesseCW on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:16:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I read more into aoeu's comment than that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Brown Thrasher

                Specifically, I read up to (and then past) where aoeu says "I suspect that is the actual case."  

                This implies to me that Manning's guilt isn't "obvious" to aoeu, but aeou suspects it may be obvious to whomever is investigating, and that's why Manning is where he is.

                Also, aoeu only listed the "obvious" guilt as one possibility, with the other being "he is being railroaded."

                Can't speak for aoeu, though -- but that was my take on it.  

            •   we need some more "obviously guilty" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FloraLine

              people to start exposing war crimes, but what is missing is talk about prosecuting the people committing those exposed war crimes.

              without the ants the rainforest dies

              by aliasalias on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 12:41:42 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  If he disclosed classified information (3+ / 0-)

            to an unauthorized recipient, he committed a crime.
            That might be mitigated by the fact that one (or maybe more) of the bits of information were evidence of war crimes. But the fact remains that he disclosed, illegally. And he knew that what he was doing was illegal.
            The fact that he did it from the battlefield, during a war, released war logs that revealed details of operations, he's damm lucky he wasn't summarily shot.
            All that said, I salute his courage to go through with it and believe that his intentions were sterling. He should be brought to trial and consideration for his mistreatment should be weighed as part of that trial. Also the fact that both the State Dept and the Pentagon have said publicly that his dump didn't harm US or put our people in danger, should count in his favor.
            I'm not convinced that he sent all of the WikiLeaks files, either. Just for one: How is it possible that sensitive State Department files are accessible by a Pfc in the Army in Iraq? Why are State and the Pentagon's networks open to each other at all? And how much else is available to basically, anyone?
            Assange has said that he has no way to know who sent him the files, that there was an anonymous drop box set up and publicized. It could have been anyone.
            And of course, we have no statement from Manning as to what he sent.

            If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

            by CwV on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 12:40:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's part of the problem with the WL - how (0+ / 0-)

              do they authenticate anything? If they don't have any knowledge of the source, who verifies that the documents are real?

              The war crimes, the corruption, sure does need more sunshine, but without effective editorial policies, WL is also a potential conduit for propaganda.

              Who's to say that whistleblowers haven't submitted documents, and Julian Assange has secretly auctioned them off to someone who want to use them to blackmail the subject.

          •  There's that, but... (0+ / 0-)

            Really, it wasn't about Manning, specifically.  I wasn't clear on that.

            The part about someone seeming guilty of something made me uncomfortable because in general, that's a pretty dangerous line of reasoning.  Sometimes people "seem" guilty because they are, but often when anyone says someone "seems" guilty, they're using it to justify acting on their own ignorance, fear and spite to mistreat someone else.  Standing on a corner with friends while appearing Hispanic, black teenagers wearing hoodies, a woman not reacting to abuse the way other people think she should so she must have made it up, etc.  And yes, indefinite detention and no presumption of innocence.

            Either you have evidence and he's guilty of something specific, or you don't have evidence, and he's not guilty of anything.  "He seems guilty of something" doesn't work.

            (BTW, I hate the term "person of interest" for the same reason.  That was the Bush administration's way of implying guilt without having enough evidence to even call the person a suspect.  Way to lower the bar.)

            Anyway, that's why I took that part of the comment out of context and ran with it -- just to say "look how the sentiment expressed here can be harmful."  

            Having said all of that, though -- I'm just talking about that particular choice if words.  None of what I've said is meant to be an attack on aoeu.  Clearly aoeu was using much more thoughtful reasoning than that, and wasn't being a blind authoritarian fool.

          •  Sure you do (0+ / 0-)

            until proven otherwise.  This will be determined at trial.

            Basic logic suggests that the work "if" shows that presumption is still in effect. "If" the things alleged are true, then the presumption of innocence will have been refuted.

            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

            by Mindful Nature on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:39:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Whatever he did, prison treatment still wrong (16+ / 0-)

          Nobody has that coming, and if he's acquitted, it can't possibly be made right.  

          The part that gets me:  of the war crime,  his cruel and unusual treatment in custody, and the disclosure, only the disclosure seems to merit outrage and severe punishment.     The rest is the new normal.  

          "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold...The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity" -W.B. Yeats

          by LucyandByron on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 12:24:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  If he broke the law, (13+ / 0-)

          he was morally correct to do so.

          And he's been entirely vindicated: not only did he expose numerous crimes; the revelations therein helped to blow up the negotiations between Iraq and the U.S.. securing a full withdrawal, and helped to trigger the democratic uprisings in the Middle East. An enormous service to humanity. We need more disclosure, more sunlight.

          •  I'm going to strongly disagree (0+ / 0-)

            because I still believe in Democracy, and Manley is in no position to arrogate to himself decisionmaking for the entire American people.

            The job of determining what secrets are or are not kept falls to Congress and the PResident.  Maybe we need more sunlight:  Make that case to your fellow citizens and get people of that view elected.

            Otherwise, we're just back to the whole soverign citizen nonsense.

            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

            by Mindful Nature on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:41:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  no you don't leave all decisions up to authorities (0+ / 0-)

              like Congress and the President to act on revealing war crimes or mass misinformation, in fact they are usually the reason someone has to blow the whistle after reporting wrongs up the chain of command to no avail.

              The way you describe it the Pentagon Papers should have not been exposed by anyone other than the ones it exposed.

              Question authority.

              without the ants the rainforest dies

              by aliasalias on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 12:52:08 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Manning plead guilty to some charges yesterday. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        antirove

        Maybe the poster is a fascist.  Maybe he's just a good guesser.  At any rate, Manning does in fact "seem to be guilty of something".

        Shortly before Manning took the stand Thursday, the judge accepted terms that could allow him to plead guilty to the lesser charges. Manning would accept responsibility for providing classified material to WikiLeaks in exchange for a maximum term of 16 years in prison.
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

        One piece of free advice to the GOP: Drop the culture wars, explicitly.

        by Inland on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 01:26:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I never meant to imply aoeu is a fascist, BTW (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not sure if it was clear in my original comment -- I wasn't being sarcastic, or trying to attack aoeu.  We're all on the same side 95% of the time, so I don't feel a raging need to alienate fellow Kossacks or assume the worst about anyone without proof.  

          Or maybe it was clear that I wasn't attacking, in which case, never mind.  /Litella

        •  It's not as if any innocent person has ever (4+ / 0-)

          in history decided that pleading out for a lighter sentence when the President of the United States has utterly destroyed any chance they had of a fair trial is the smart thing to do, whether or not they're guilty.

          When the CIC has publicly instructed the Military Tribunal you'll be facing that you are guilty, you're not going to win.

          "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

          by JesseCW on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:18:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  That statement sounds about par for you (0+ / 0-)

      "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room." - President Merkin Muffley

      by Farkletoo on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:53:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  he seems to be guilty of something (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, PennBrian, 84thProblem

      Yeah that might be an expected take away on the subject for anyone who considers CNN newsworthy, trustworthy or capable of no bias and exclusively views one-way infotainment news product(s) asif they adhered to any plausible journo standards, which CNN et al rarely, if ever do-

      Your here since circa 2009, and appear to be respected in the community, but that tripe snip from your comment is one expected from a narrow, myopic CNNesque viewpoint; not one I would expect from a Daily Kos reader, and community participant-

      The treatment PFC Manning has received is more indicative of the United States military metastasis  "seeming to be guilty of something..." than Manning; IMHO-

      The US Senate couldn't secure their own file system via appropriate ACL knowledge for Network shares, and NTFS disk permissions, so possibly the massive doc dump was an expression of how poorly secured the diplomatic cables were-

      Evidence that contradicts the ruling belief system is held to extraordinary standards, while evidence that entrenches it is uncritically accepted. -Carl Sagan

      by RF on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 12:24:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  He released over 400,000 cables. (5+ / 0-)

      He had no idea what was in the vast, vast majority of them. So how is he a whistleblower? He released truckloads of information, and some of it shows bad acts by the US military. But he didnt seem bothered by releasing hundreds of thousands of documents completely unaware of what was in them, who could be compromised by the information, etc. He was a messed up kid who made a very bad decision that was clearly illegal. Given the absolute amount of volume of information he decided to release, i dont understand those who think him some sort of hero.

      •  Well, I'll tell you why I think he's some sort (5+ / 0-)

        of hero.

        He exposed many instances of lying and deception. He exposed the war crimes committed and written about in this diary.

        He exposed the classification system for the evil clusterfuck it is.

        It was a huge amout of info, and he didn't know much of it. However, the goddamn U.S. Military needs a LOT more sunshine shown on it.

        Then, his abominable treatment by the marines is a crime in itself.

        And who was compromised by the information? I don't give a rat's ass if someone was embarrassed, WHO DIED?

        Besides the Iraqis, of course.

        If you don't understand what I've written, you are not someone whose opinion I would care about anyway.

        "I believe more women should carry guns. I believe armed women will make the world a better place. Women need to come to think of themselves not as victims but as dangerous." Anna Pigeon

        by glorificus on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 03:05:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But... (3+ / 0-)

          All that said, he broke a law. And its a good law, not an unjust one. The law cant be "people with security clearances may disseminate any information they decide to disseminate". I think everyone here is smart enough to understand why that cannot be the law.

          •  Government derive their just authority from (4+ / 0-)

            the consent of the Governed.

            Uninformed Consent is an oxymoron.

            To the extent that our Government acts without our knowledge, our Government acts unjustly.

            I do find it interesting that those with the lowest regard for an individual right to privacy are almost universally those with the most religious dedication to the protection of state secrets.

            Warrantless wiretaps?  Hell yeah!!!

            Release of information that wasn't Secret or Top Secret, but merely classified?

            Fry the fucker!!!

            "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

            by JesseCW on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:21:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I would not be in favor of executing the guy, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Wordsinthewind

              and especially not for electrocuting him. Not sure where you got that from. He just should get whatever others who would commit his crimes would get, no more no less. Thats pretty non-controversial, unless you believe that the law shouldnt apply to liberals,

              •  I do not support the Empire you support. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                84thProblem, glorificus, aliasalias

                I do not support Governance by secret laws and secret acts, as you do.

                I am an American.

                "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

                by JesseCW on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:12:06 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  wow..not a fan of American history eh? (4+ / 0-)
                  I am an American.
                  So anyone who disagrees with you isn't?

                  jeezus

                  Obama 2012 http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

                  by jiffypop on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:34:53 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  WTF does "not a fan of American history" (0+ / 0-)

                    mean?

                    I don't know if there's a Daniel Ellsberg for every Tuskegee Airmen story, but your comment smacks of trying to take a cheap shot because you've nothing else of substance to argue.

                    "I believe more women should carry guns. I believe armed women will make the world a better place. Women need to come to think of themselves not as victims but as dangerous." Anna Pigeon

                    by glorificus on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 08:41:43 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  The law is a secret? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Wordsinthewind

                  Even i know that military intelligence analysts are not allowed to decide on their own to release 400,000 classified documents. It is no secret.

                  And as an american, i thought that i get to participate in elections to choose our leaders. I dont recall ever voting for Manning, yet he assumed the power only presidents have to declassify information. He decided, on behalf of all of us, what he thought we should release. I doubt you would be so dismissive of the law if he were a neocon rightie as opposed to a gay leftie. But that is irrelevant.

            •  HEre's the problem (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              doc2

              he broke laws enacted by the duly elected representatives of the American people.  

              To the extent that our Government acts without our knowledge, our Government acts unjustly.
              This is naive foolery, because a large majority understand precisely why OUR government must have the ability to keep secrets.  

              Want to change that law? Run for office, or make your case, and if you change the minds of the American people, then the law will change.

              Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

              by Mindful Nature on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:44:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  do Bush, Cheney, Rice, Banksters on White House (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                glorificus

                Street that committed massive fraud (as itemized in Senate Report) face any charges?
                More of that the law is like taxes, it's for the little people.

                without the ants the rainforest dies

                by aliasalias on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 01:00:14 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  If the fraud violated laws, they should be proscut (0+ / 0-)

                  prosecuted by our Representatives.  Which is why I'm a little irked certain of our Representatives with the duty to uphold the law.

                  Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                  by Mindful Nature on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 07:09:32 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  hell even 'savvy businessman' lied to Congress (0+ / 0-)

                    but nothing happens to these guys and that includes from the Senate Report by Sen. Carl Levin's two year study using terms like "massive fraud" to describe what they found.

                    without the ants the rainforest dies

                    by aliasalias on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 01:10:38 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Exactly. Cant have, as a matter (0+ / 0-)

                of public policy, everyone in the military deciding what to publicly release and when. So we must make it illegal to do so. No exceptions. Not even for liberals.

            •  some of us (0+ / 0-)

              understand and appreciate democracy.  An appreciation you apparently do not share.

              Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

              by Mindful Nature on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 09:44:54 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  If we had elected Manning president, (0+ / 0-)

                He'd have the power to declassify these documents (though if he were responsible he'd first order all of them read to ensure it safe to do so). He ain't the president though. He was democratically elected to nothing. He just assumed powers. That is why he will, and should, serve many years in prison.

              •  and I apologize for the snotty tone, FWIW (0+ / 0-)

                though Doc captures the argument well

                Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                by Mindful Nature on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 07:08:15 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  I agree that the whole MIC, wars, and (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Garrett, databob

          war mongering companies, the mess needs more sunshine, and that whistleblowers need avenues and intermediaries to interrupt corruption, but their needs to be some kind of editorial judgment in between the raw evidence and disclosure.

          That there is some important benefits to the US and to the world to expose war crimes, yes, that is clear.

          But you and I can not possibly know who paid the cost for the gross volume, indescriminating data dump.

          I don't see how any government can function without confidential diplomatic meetings and reports.  The fact that many of the diplomatic cables were not top secret, and were merely confidential, doesn't mitigate the fact that the documents were STOLEN by someone under a duty to safeguard them.

          The break down in military discipline was evident long before Bradley's alleged theft/whistle/data dump.

          •  As a user of the information, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener, aliasalias

            I very specifically like the "indiscriminate" and "gross volume" aspects of some of the Wikileaks data dumps.

            Quite formally: someone else's editorial judgment, prefiltering the raw data, wrecks the data's usefulness for inductively drawing conclusions.

            •  I agree that any kind of raw data has value (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Garrett, wenchacha

              for it's own sake, without any imposed biases or filters, a fresh pair of eyes can sift, filter, identify patterns that others did not see, or could not see.

              It's an immense challenge, how to deal with the break down in the rule of law, the wide-spread breakdown in military discipline, the likely number of war crimes, and graft, and so on. When so many actors each seeking to establish their own spy network, with intelligence that can be held against others, I suspect we will be sorting out the modern "J Edgar Hoover" age for many decades to come.

              Question for you: How do you know the raw data is authentic? How do you know some was not held back? How do you know false information wasn't intentionally planted?

              Understand where I'm coming from?  A whistleblower platform that has no knowledge of the source, can not possible be a secure source of knowledge.  It would be too easy for one organization to feed prejudicial information into it about it's competitor.

              How do you deal with the possibility of fake data?

            •  Even if BM did hand off 200,000 documents (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Garrett, databob

              and even if he claims that yes, he did, and even if some intermediate says, yes, I received X gigabytes from BM, and gave them to Wikileaks, there is authentication in that chain.

              Bradley can't point to each page, and say for certain, yes, that's one of the pages I stole and gave to my contact.  

              I'm not invoking CT, I'm just suggesting that except for a few indelible memories, he can't certify which files are exact copies. Only someone with access to the original source or personal knowledge of the events recorded can certify that copies weren't edited.

            •  One aspect that makes me very sad, is that (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Garrett, wenchacha

              I believe most people serving in the military are honorable people who, most of the time, attempt to do the right thing, in shitty circumstances.

              BM should never have been sent to combat. I watched the video of the interview with his father and I felt really sorry for BM, although he's not entirely blameless either. It seemed evident from about age 7 his father was not around much. His mother was isolated and completely dependent.  I think his father didn't know how to have a father-son relationship.

              BM is very bright, and if he had remained stateside, with a company commander who looked out for him, gave him enough structure, but also guided him to channel his creativity and drive in a useful direction, he might have matured into a decent soldier, doing some kind of geeky office work.

            •  The conditions of his detention are a disgrace - (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Garrett

              I feel ashamed, again, about what some in our military are willing to do to their fellow man.

              At the same time, it was also mildly disturbing to read accounts of his testimony, where he answered in such a way that the people present laughed.  Laughter? It made it sound like he was well prepared to tell his story, and "entertain" them.  He has every right to present himself as a sympathetic and likable person. But that seemed off to me. And could mean many different things, an intelligent person under enormous stress, coping with a surreal experience, or it could mean the story of his life is now bigger than he had ever dared to dream and he's working it for full effect, with sarcasm, etc. as if it's a game.

      •  The facebook entries - if they are truly his (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        awesumtenor, doc2

        entries, suggested to me that he was young, defiant, and reflexively rebellious, AND wanted to be recognized as a vocal challenger of Don't ask, Don't tell. He may have been an activist, or he may have been pulling the classic, "I dare you to catch me."

        Yes, DADT was a horrible policy, and I was very happy to see it repealed. But the sense I got from reading his FB was that this was a teenager, with a reflexive rebellious impulse and a desire for recognition (and love, experiencing his first love).

        If the chat logs were really Bradley Manning, that also suggested to me a compulsive desire to be known for his crime of stealing the largest cache of classified documents EVER. (Like awesome! OMG, I can't believe I'm telling you this! His motivation seemed to be part glee, part loneliness, part compulsively trying to engage, and part spinning emotionally out of control.)

        That was something unsettling to me, again, if the chat really was Bradley, that seemed like a desperate desire for fame, a desire to be SEEN as a hero/martyr.

        The "van thing" - he knew that video was important, because it was in a JAG officer's folder. I'm not convinced that he was motivated by a moral conviction to stop the war.  Rather, he seemed hell bent on a little anarchy, especially as his personal life was falling apart and he was so emotionally overwrought, and being reflexively rebellious, he grasped at leaking to cement a place for himself in the hacker hall of fame.

        Except he wasn't a hacker either. He didn't break in anywhere. If indeed, it was him, who gave the docs to someone, to give them to WL, he stole the documents.

        He had no desire to remain anonymous and get away with it.  

        Unless he has been completely framed, (which seems unlikely), it seems to me that he wanted to be KNOWN for doing it, even if he got himself killed in the fallout.

        •  he was a messed up young person (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener

          who could not have done a better job of destroying his life. It is indeed sad, and i think he is to some extent a sympathetic character. But these are serious laws, and he violated his oath, and simply must be deverely punished.

      •  call the prosecutor and explain how YOU know (0+ / 0-)

        what HE knew.

        without the ants the rainforest dies

        by aliasalias on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 12:55:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  right, just as soon as we stop the criminal (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW, 84thProblem

      warfare we can look into all the bad decisions of the people heroically trying to stop it.

    •  he has disclosed "more info than he could have (0+ / 0-)

      possibly reviewed" ? You need to contact the Court with your evidence immediately.

      without the ants the rainforest dies

      by aliasalias on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 12:35:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site