Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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:

        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.





            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:

              ...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-)

         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-)

             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.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site