Skip to main content

View Diary: Bradley Manning - In His Own Words (104 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  In his own words... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Homer J, sviscusi

    ...Manning committed treason.  All else is rationalization.

    •  Manning is an ideal (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, 4kedtongue

      Rorschach test.

      If you see a hero, you're a liberal.
      If you see a traitor, you're a conservative.

      •  Ron Paul is a liberal? (7+ / 0-)

        Good to know, thanks.

        Must be nice to live in such a black and white world.

      •  Bullshit (5+ / 0-)

        Stuff your purity test.  Is it too complicated for you to understand that while he provided a good service, he broke the law and likely committed treason?  His actions didn't save even one life so not sure what's so heroic about him.  

        •  Where are you folks (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ask, 4kedtongue, BradyB

          getting this treason claim?

          Not even the Obama administration is making that charge.

          As for "breaking the law," that itself means nothing. Some laws should be broken.

          •  I'm as entitled to my (0+ / 0-)

            opinion as all you Manning worshipers are.  He was in the military and broke ranks to post secret documents - in my eyes it's treason.  That the Obama administration didn't bother with that charge is likely that he'll get enough of a sentence to satisfy them.

            •  Of course you're entitled to your opinion... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              4kedtongue

              But if the Government, who is prosecuting the guy, isn't charging him with Treason, then doesn't that make you think that your opinion is perhaps totally fucking wrong?

              There is a definition of Treason in the Constitution.  I suggest that you go read it before you embarrass yourself anymore.  It is obvious that you are intellectually unprepared for this debate.

              •  Absolutely not (0+ / 0-)

                Coming from a family of lawyers taught me one has nothing to do with the other.

                •  Coming from a family of lawyers... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...doesn't add one bit of intellectual heft to your opinions.

                  None.

                  Nada.

                  Zip.

                  Zero.

                  And as far as you knowing what's important, I'm glad to know you don't come from a family of lumberjacks, because you certainly can't make out the forest for the trees.

                  •  Oooooh - that really hurts (0+ / 0-)

                    Cuz what some anonymous poster has to say really keeps me up at night.

                    •  You're under the false impression... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...that my comments are meant to hurt you.  I disagree with you -- and I really disagree with the idea that simply being related to lawyers gives you some special legal insight.

                      Btw, the time stamp on your reply indicates 2:27AM, which I would present as evidence that would undercut the biting sarcasm of this statement:

                      Cuz what some anonymous poster has to say really keeps me up at night.
                      If my comment didn't keep you up last night, what did?

                      :)

                      •  Are you under the impression (0+ / 0-)

                        there is only one time zone in the US?  It was 5:27am and I'm an early riser.  Do try and keep that ego of yours in check.

                        And now I'm bored with this entire conversation.  Manning will get what he's asked for - martyrdom in prison.

                        •  Glad to know... (0+ / 0-)

                          ...that responding to me is a top priority in your morning routine.

                          :)

                          Sadly, you are correct regarding what Manning will receive.  Sad because he'll be a political prisoner of the US government.

                          Now you can put the finishing touches on your gushing letter to the president, commiserating with the satisfaction of the yet-to-be-determined prison sentence of a young, conscience-driven patriot.

              •  So you can stuff (0+ / 0-)

                your intellectual superiority attitude.  I know what's important is what can be proved.

                •  Still haven't read the definition of Treason yet? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ask, 4kedtongue

                  Please take a moment and go read it now.

                  Notice that there are only two ways laid out in the Constitution to commit Treason:

                  The first is to levy War against the US. The second is to adhere to the US's Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

                  Since Manning clearly didn't wage War against the US, if Manning committed Treason (as you repeatedly claim) then he must have done the latter.

                  Which leads to a very simple question:

                  To which Enemy did Manning give Aid and Comfort?

                  There seems to be only two options in this case.  Either Wikileaks is the Enemy and Manning committed Treason by giving them the documents directly, or Al Qaeda is the Enemy and Manning aided them by making the documents available to the general public.

                  I would like to think that we can both agree that considering a news organization like Wikileaks an Enemy of the US is preposterous.  Wikileaks, prior to the Bradley Manning incident, routinely published and reported on disclosed documents just like the New York Times and Washington Post.  To claim that Wikileaks is an Enemy of the State for doing exactly what the NYT does would be ridiculous.

                  Therefore we are left with Al Qaeda being the "Enemy" and Manning being guilty of Treason since the former could have read the documents after they were made public.  Once again, I hope that you can agree how silly it would be for this to be considered Treason.  

                  To claim that Manning's actions are Treason via this reasoning, would be to claim that all whistleblowing that reveals Government malfeasance to the public is also Treason.  Since any type of effective Government whistleblowing allows our "Enemies" to become aware of our Government's misconduct, all Government whistleblowers would be guilty of Treason according to this logic.

                  Let's not forget that even Ellsberg, who released documents from a more secretive level of Classification than Manning and of more importance to National Security, wasn't charged with Treason.

                  I hope that you can now see why your opinion is based out of pure ignorance.

                  •  Careful... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ask

                    ...I think he said he's related to Nancy Grace (or is related to a bunch of lawyers), so he knows why Manning's prosecutors aren't charging him with Treason.

                    I mean, since Manning confessed to releasing the cables to WikiLeaks -- and hasn't implicated anyone else in his actions -- and we know precisely what was leaked and how helpful it was to 'The Enemy' (not very -- unless 'embarrassing' is the same thing as 'aid and comfort' -- according to Obama's first Sec. of Defense), there's NO WAY prosecutors could ever prove something like Treason because, you know, they know EVERYTHING he has done because he told them he did it during his Kangaroo Kourt appearance.

                    Jesus Christ -- it's not bad enough that the government is charging him at all (and engaging in an all-out, unprecedented WAR on Whistleblowers) -- some here seem to be UPSET that he isn't looking at charges that could result in the death penalty.

                    •  I'm a she (0+ / 0-)

                      and it certainly doesn't surprise me you would make a stupid assumption.  According to you, prosecutions NEVER overcharge.  Must be why so many murderers are charged with 1st, 2nd degree as well as manslaughter.

                      He broke the law  - he admitted it and belongs in prison.  Period.  Now feel free to continue with the kindergarden playground part of your program with lame and pathetic insults and taunts.  

                      •  Your gender on an anonymous blog... (0+ / 0-)

                        ...is incidental to this debate -- not to mention impossible to determine.  Deferring to the masculine isn't an assumption, it's a common default, sexist as that general rule may be.

                        2nd, you're the one speculating (based on your legal acumen as someone related to a host of lawyers) as to the reason Manning's prosecutors haven't charged him with Treason -- not me.  In this instance I happen to agree with the prosecutors:  Manning did not commit an act of treason.

                        And C,  I don't need a lecture regarding Kindergarten critical reasoning ('He broke the law...Period') and pathetic insults and taunts from a potty-mouthed person who tells people to 'stuff it'.

                        Carry on.

                        •  Sorry, I had no idea (0+ / 0-)

                          I was conversing with a child who can't handle adult words.  I'll try and remember to only use PG-13 language around such a delicate flower.

                          •  No apology for the vulgar language... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...is necessary.  Just pointing out that you by no means have staked out the adult portion of this debate:

                            Now feel free to continue with the kindergarden [sic] playground part of your program with lame and pathetic insults and taunts.  
                            I might be many things, but a shrinking violet ain't one of them.  You may curse and tell people with whom you disagree to 'stuff it' to your little heart's content.  You simply can't pretend to be the grown up when doing so.  That's all.
        •  I'm wondering how you know this: (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eddie L, PhilJD, 4kedtongue
          His actions didn't save even one life
        •  Apparently breaking the law in the banking (4+ / 0-)

          world results in a manageable fine, but no one will spend the remainder of his/her life behind bars.  HSBC aided and abetted drug cartels.  How many injuries and deaths are they responsible for?

          His actions didn't save even one life
           How do you know this to be true?
      •  What if he's a little of both? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BleacherBum153, artmartin, mallyroyal

        Look, I understand, completely, why people think he's a hero. But nobody put a gun to his head and forced him to go into the Army. You take that step, you follow the rules. I'm the exact opposite of an authoritarian...but that's why I never went into the military. I knew better. You sign up for that, you're signing up for an organization that does--that must--be authoritarian in nature.

        So: morally correct? Most likely. Treasonous? Yeah. Sorry, but it was.

        "Maybe: it's a vicious little word that could slay me"--Sara Bareilles

        by ChurchofBruce on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 08:02:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe we should... (0+ / 0-)

          ...reconsider whether military service should be a pathway to citizenship.  

          Maybe we should get rid of all military recruiters who swarm economically depressed areas promising a way out of poverty and a higher education.

          Maybe some people didn't have the same opportunities as you did and joined because there was nowhere else to go except the street corner.

          Not everyone who enlists in the military is an authoritarian.  Some people enlisted after 9/11 because they felt it was their patriotic duty to DEFEND the United States.

          There are MANY incentives for poor people to join the military -- and making a claim that ANYONE who signs up for military service must have at least a little authoritarian in him or her is a preposterous statement without an iota evidence to back it up.  Actually, Manning's actions belie your nonsensical assertion.  But it is a convenient way to draw a distinction between Manning and a REAL liberal or a REAL patriot or a REAL person of conscience...after all, he must be a little authoritarian for having joined the military in the first place.  Ridiculous.  There are MANY kind, generous, thoughtful, righteous people who sign up for military service.

          Manning's actions were not treasonous.  I would argue that the people who, when properly made aware of his concerns and confronted with his evidence, ignored or rebuffed him -- or those who purposely and illegally mis-classified information to cover up crimes and hide embarrassing actions,  are the only traitors in this episode.

          •  Is the military itself an authoritarian (0+ / 0-)

            structured organization? The answer is yes.

            Our military may be the military of a democracy, but it itself doesn't run on democratic principles. It's top-down. One would hope that anyone that goes into the military realizes that.

            I wasn't saying that people that go into the military themselves want to be on the top of an authoritarian structure. I'm saying that if you go into the military, you'd better realize that the military now OWNS you, for your term of service.

            And Manning went in not only after we were well hip-deep in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and while Bush and the rest of the slimeballs were still running the place. If he didn't know what he was getting into, that's on him.

            And, of course there are kind, generous, thoughtful, righteous people that are in the military. But they've given their lives to a top-down authoritarian organization. As long as they realize that.... And, no, people that join the military are far more patriotic than I am. I'm not patriotic at all. I'd move to Sweden in a fucking heartbeat if I could.

            "Maybe: it's a vicious little word that could slay me"--Sara Bareilles

            by ChurchofBruce on Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 08:14:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  By your definition... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ChurchofBruce

              ...most, if not ALL, institutions are 'authoritarian' to one degree or another...which makes the argument a little weak.

              Isn't someone who goes to work for a tobacco company OWNED by that company?  Don't they sign all kinds of non-disclosure contracts?  Does this preclude him or her from running to Mike Wallace with a report commissioned and hidden by that tobacco company linking smoking to lung cancer?

              Obviously, Manning, by his own admission, stated that he BELIEVED that what we were doing in Iraq was proper PRIOR to his service in the military.  He discovered that he was mistaken while serving because he was witness to the lies that were being told on a daily basis.  This is important because there is a HUGE segment of the population that never questions the pronouncements or actions of the government (especially the military), and these people VOTE.

              So no, I still don't buy the argument that joining the military means you have to accept some sort of authoritarian mind-set...or any more of an authoritarian mind-set as when you obey your company's 'Dress Code' or submit to a drug test as a requirement of employment.

              He is paying -- and will continue to pay -- a great price for having the courage to oppose that very mind-set by acting according to the dictates of his conscience.

              •  As someone who is completely (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                4kedtongue

                anti-authoritarian, I agree with you that most institutions are authoritarian to some degree or another. And, yes, dress codes and pee-in-a-cup apply to a degree.

                But the military is a number of steps above that. Your tobacco executive example is a good one, because it shows the similarities and differences. There would be consequences for violating the non-disclose agreement. What are they? Depends on the terms of the agreement. But there would be consequences. If you're comfortable about exposing yourself to those consequences because you have a moral imperative to do so, good on you--but don't pretend you didn't know the consequences.

                So, what are the consequences for passing along classified material when you are an employee of the US Army? I think we all know what they are. I think Manning does, too.

                For the record, I get the impression Manning knows there are consequences to what he did, he's just trying to mitigate them. (I don't blame him--this shouldn't be anything close to a capital crime, or even life in prison--as I said elsewhere, time served or even a couple more years on top of that I think would be fair justice.) However, I get the impression that some of his supporters think there should be no consequences. I don't agree with that.

                He signed on the dotted line for an organization that has one of its major tenets, "Obey orders and keep your mouth shut."

                As for him thinking what we did in Iraq was proper before he signed up--he signed up after Abu Ghraib blew up.

                After many years in retail, last July, I finally got sick of the abuse and told a nasty idiotic customer who was screaming at me to fuck off. Did I know the consequences? You bet your ass I did. I got fired. I knew I would. I didn't mind at all--but I didn't expect to keep my job.

                "Maybe: it's a vicious little word that could slay me"--Sara Bareilles

                by ChurchofBruce on Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 11:03:25 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  :) First thing... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...I'll start with your last point, because I certainly empathize with your scenario because I want to tell clients to fuck off at least 20 times a day, and I live in constant fear of the consequences were I to give in to that impulse:

                  A major, if not DEFINING, component of working in a service-related field is customer service.  You weren't fired because of some insidious authoritarian mind-set, but because you failed to perform your job properly -- as much as I would have supported you in telling someone to fuck off.  And believe me, in 99% of the situations where I see someone in retail roll their eyes, the customer usually ALWAYS has it coming.  :)

                  Second, I'm not among the Bradley Manning supporters who think there should be no consequences for his actions.  Quite the contrary, I think there should be swift and severe consequences:

                  They should pin a medal on his chest and promote him as soon as possible.  

                  Also, the people in the chain of command who rebuffed his actions when he took steps to make his superiors aware of the illegality he was witnessing should see the inside of a brig and receive a court martial.

                  :)

      •  Bullshit. (0+ / 0-)

        If you see a hero, you're a fool.

        •  Bullshit. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Don midwest, 4kedtongue

          If you see a traitor you're a fool. Manning is a patriot. You can have your opinion and your USA cheerleading flag. It won't get you into heaven. If you think that we are in some God given righteous war of justice, then obviously there is a reality gap.

          A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

          by onionjim on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 09:01:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  to be consistent (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SilentBrook

          I just took David Misner to task for painting this in black and white on the other side of this argument.  Your statement is just as divisive.  Can we all just agree that this is a complex issue and let the Redstaters be the black and white folks?

          "A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." -- Carl Sagan

          by artmartin on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 09:11:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It is hardly that simple (4+ / 0-)

        If you don't think too hard, maybe you have the knee jerk reactions down.  However, if you believe in democracy, then you are highly suspicious of Manning.  

        As with Wikileaks, the issue is the same:
        1) States do have to keep secrets
        2) in a democracy, the policy decisions on what to keep secret and how are made by democratically elected and accountable officials.  This includes the policies on secret keeping.
        3) the remedy is for the people of the United States to elect officials and press for fewer secrets.  Until there is a consensus among the People to do otherwise, those decisions are delegated to the President

        Therefore, Manning and Wikileaks are taking it upon themselves to circumvent our constitutional system and at bedrock usurping the authority of the People to govern ourselves by making those decisions for us.  This is no different than the corruption from corporate spending or any other force that subverts democracy.

        Those who throw them up on pedestals because they don't like the determinations from the democratic process are in reality very much following in the same path as the nullificatonists and states rights folks who wanted to over turn democratic decisions they didn't like about segregation and the like.

        Therefore, I would say, if you are a liberal, you are very suspicious of Manning.

        Of course, Manning should be set free immediately because the judiciary and executive branches have made an absolute mockery of our proper judicial processes as well.  This is so egregious that all charges should be thrown out.

        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 Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 08:54:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  and there are those of us (4+ / 0-)

        that aren't quite sure what to think of Manning.  Had he only exposed a handful of clearly heinous acts one would be much more sympathetic to his plight but he unleashed this torrent of information that had potential to cause true harm to people and the conduct of our international relations at a time when our government was trying to slowly change our perception in the world.  I get his outrage and he's probably as infected with PTSD as a soldier out walking in a minefield.  Across his computer came very disturbing things daily.  War is horrific and men turn into animals during its conduct.

        My guess is that this is an extremely complex issue and not a one of us can fully get into the mind of Bradley Manning at the moment he committed the actions he did.  I have my own experience with standing up to the military and experiencing their strange form of justice, spent time in a Naval brig, seeing all kinds of good and bad and I can assure you the military is not some monolith of authoritarian rednecks out for blood lust although those people exist in larger numbers than the general population.

        But at the end of my ordeal I fully acknowledge that I knew the consequences of what I did ahead of time and accepted the results and the effects on my life.  I also hold my head up proud that my "crime" put no other person in danger and that I held fast to my convictions.  

        David your statement is divisive and I'm pretty sure that's your intent given other things I've seen you write.  The question is why?  Why do you post such things?  Why would you want to tear apart this marvelous site where we can share and build?  If that happens what will you be left with?

        "A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." -- Carl Sagan

        by artmartin on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 09:08:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well (10+ / 0-)

      that is not for you to decide.

      Is it treason to expose abuse of power. Is it treason to expose this harrowing video footage of senseless killing?
      I don't think so.

      (actual video starts @ 2.46)

      Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid. You step out of line, the man come and take you away. - S. Stills

      by ask on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 07:03:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I would say, yes, it's treason; (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ask, mallyroyal

        but unless the State is the ultimate source of all that is good and right, perhaps there are occasions in which treason is morally necessary.

        Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

        by corvo on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 07:10:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If we were (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          corvo, Heart of the Rockies

          to accept that: "..the State is the ultimate source of all that is good and right".." - then maybe.

          But as you suggest, that is simply not the case. Transparency is an overriding concern unless it poses an immediate threat to national security.

          Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid. You step out of line, the man come and take you away. - S. Stills

          by ask on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 07:15:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly. I don't accept that anyone or anything (5+ / 0-)

            is the ultimate source of all that is good or right.

            Sometimes the only right way to do something is to commit a crime.  To any authoritarian who finds that horrifying or outrageous, I would say only that (1) this is not a license to unlimited lawlessness, and one almost inevitably will be punished for such actions; and (2) is that not what our Founding Fathers did?

            Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

            by corvo on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 07:21:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree with you (0+ / 0-)

              except for two things.

              1) A lot of the defense of Bradley is, to my mind, undercut by the fact that he voluntarily joined the military. If you're uncomfortable with authoritarianism and you don't think the state is all that's good and right--Jesus Christ, what the fuck are you doing in the Army?????

              2) I get the impression that lots of people here think he should not be "punished for such actions".

              "Maybe: it's a vicious little word that could slay me"--Sara Bareilles

              by ChurchofBruce on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 08:08:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And I disagree with you (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ask, ChurchofBruce, Eddie L, SilentBrook

                on both of those matters.

                Joining the Army is not the same thing as surrendering your conscience entirely, for one thing; for another, yes, I think he is probably guilty of whatever he's being charged of having done -- and that the punishment should be time served, or less.

                Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

                by corvo on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 08:13:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'll actually completely agree (0+ / 0-)

                  with you on the second. Time served. Although I wouldn't find it a miscarriage of justice if he got a few years on top of that. (Anything more than that would be.)

                  But we're going to disagree on the first. Joining the Army inherently means that you may be required, as part of your job, to kill another human being--and that doesn't constitute surrendering your conscience? Does to me.

                  "Maybe: it's a vicious little word that could slay me"--Sara Bareilles

                  by ChurchofBruce on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 08:19:06 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Depends on the conscience (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ChurchofBruce, SilentBrook

                    and the circumstances, I think.  I do believe there are actions that are entirely wrong and at the same time entirely necessary; killing a war-waging Nazi would be among them.

                    Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

                    by corvo on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 08:39:56 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  When you can convince (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Don midwest

            the American people of that, then that will be law.  Until then, be aware that you are acting in opposition to democratic principles.  I suppose we all have a little authoritarian in us.

            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 Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 08:57:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Orwellian statement... (0+ / 0-)

              ...considering what was exposed by Manning's actions when compared to the actions which led us to war with Iraq and the REAL reasons THIS Democracy keeps much of what it does a secret.

              Do not confuse the alleged need for secrecy with core Democratic principles.

              •  right (0+ / 0-)

                The democratically elected representatives of the US set this policy, which is the REAL reason things are secret.  But I suppose you know well enough to be able to decide for all 300 million of us what we should do, right?  Shall we just call you "Emperor" or would you prefer something more grand?

                IN fact, we should not ignore that the vast bulk of what Manning release showed nothing whatsoever except a lot of diplomatic dealings.  He got most of those calls completely and utterly wrong.  Another portion got edited beyond recognition by activists who also were never elected to anything by anyone.

                Amazing how people who decry how unelected corporate leaders can set policy go all dewey eyed when people they like do it.

                I guess not many people actual believe in representative democracty after all.

                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 Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 08:01:04 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  This is funny: (0+ / 0-)
                  But I suppose you know well enough to be able to decide for all 300 million of us what we should do, right?
                  How in the hell am I supposed to know what's good for all 300 million of us when I don't even know what the government is doing in my name?  And to claim that exposing the corrupt and illegal actions of those who act behind an inappropriate veil of secrecy is somehow anathema to core Democratic Principles and undermines Democracy itself is LAUGHABLE.

                  Of course, the data dump exposed much of what is considered to be the banal workings of the diplomatic coprs., however, a lot of what the release of those cables exposed is the utter chicanery and duplicity and LIES of those TRUSTED to do what's right in our name and granted the veil of secrecy to accomplish that task.  The abuse of that privilege is astounding and does much more damage to core Democratic principles than its exposure does.

                  Manning pulled back the curtain -- and yes, he WAS in a position to know more about what was going on in secret than either you or I.  He's brave and acted in the most honorable spirit of Democracy: INFORMING THE VOTERS.

                  •  yes (0+ / 0-)

                    it involved chicanery and lies because the American people elected representatives who decided that that's how we want to run our government (for pretty reasonable reasons).  It may offend you personally, but the electorate has spoken (indirectly) on this issue.  Want a different policy?  Win at the ballot box.  Don't go complaining if you violate the law and suffer consequences, and don't look to me for sympathy for arrogating the authority of the American people by deciding you know better on these issues than the people elected to do the job of making this determination.

                    Your position is that any totally unelected and unaccountable person has a right to make up US policy more or less on the spot according to their own whims.  That is neither workable nor democratic.  You may not like the decision of the majority of the American people, but if you believe in democratic processes, then you must respect that decision, even when it is wrong, or even especially when it is wrong.

                    (Personally, I think you have kind of a skewed notion of democratic process that seems to only be ok if the results comport with your personal preferences.)

                    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 Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 09:49:32 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You're interpretation... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...of what the American people have voted for is just that:  your interpretation.

                      To state with unequivocal confidence that the American people accept any single aspect of how the government is run based on an election is ludicrous.  People vote for their representatives based on a NUMBER of issues and can vote for someone even if they disagree with them on any number of single issues.  That's like saying Bob Casey was elected because he's pro-life and not because Rick Santorum was an idiot.  

                      The fact that we have laws which protect whistle-blowers means that there are circumstances which The People have acknowledged require an act which may expose malfeasance that might go undetected due to a misuse of secrecy laws (there are also laws which make willful mis-classification illegal).

                      Bradley Manning did not make policy when he gave those cables to Wikileaks.  I don't understand how you equate his actions with making policy.  What he did was expose the lies that policy was based upon.  The same thing that Ellsberg did when he gave The Pentagon Papers to the New York Times.  Now the American people have an opportunity to go to the voting booth more informed.

                      I might not like the fact that it might not make a difference in how people vote (given the number of issues one has to weigh and the limited number of choices we have when it comes to candidates) , but I certainly am glad to have the information so I can cast a more informed vote...and I can work for more transparency wrt how the government functions.  I don't expect that things will change overnight or even with the next election.  However, the government now has a much harder field to hoe when it comes to convincing me (and many others) that what it says should be accepted without question or without a lot more scrutiny.

                      •  Who has more legitimacy to decide (0+ / 0-)

                        what is secret and what is not?

                        a) The man who was vetted and examined for years by the American people and received 65 million votes
                        b) a guy working alone in a room that know one knows about and no one voted for?

                        Yes, people don't vote on single issues, but they do vote on general approach and philosophy, which isn't terribly correlated.  In any event, there is no possible way to argue that some random dude has more legitimacy to make the determination for all of us than the elected representatives.  It may not be a perfect correlation to what we'd do if we had a plebiscite on the issue, but it's better than the random or negative correlation with some random guy.

                        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 Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 09:44:07 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

        •  Phil Ochs, The War is Over: (0+ / 0-)

          So do your duty, boys, and join with pride
          Serve your country in her suicide
          Find a flag so you can wave goodbye
          But just before the end
          Even treason might be worth a try

          This country is too young to die

          *

          When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

          by PhilJD on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 09:00:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Treason. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SilentBrook

        He released tens of thousands of classified documents into the hands of a foreign national, with absolutely no knowledge of the contents.  He and his fan club are trying to justify his actions by using one data point out of those tens of thousands of other data points.  If he'd stopped at this video you might have a case.  He didn't.  You don't.

      •  I would say (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SilentBrook

        yes, that propaganda piece is not really to be taken with anything other than huge grains of salt.  With its stupid overdubbed music and title, it is pretty clearly intented as an opinion piece and not as evidence.  

        Two things
        1) we have no idea how it was edited, but it most surely was to slant the story as much as possible
        2) if you watch it without the little narrative, it is much less clear what the tape acutally shows.

        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 Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 08:56:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Indeed, treason spelled with caps! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, ask, onionjim

      T(ruth)REASON.

      There is no doubt that truth & reason are treasonous when secrecy becomes the highest ideal in a state.

      Atlatl Cauac...Jatz'om K'uh.

      by catilinus on Tue Mar 12, 2013 at 07:25:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site