Skip to main content

View Diary: I Smell Hypocrisy. Herein I Rant (305 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That some criminals go free mean that all must? (17+ / 0-)

    Really?

    That's not justice, La Fem.

    Manning exposed crimes? Fine. If I, as a private citizen, see a crime being committed, I am still required to exercise restraint. If I can stop the crime by shouting, I have no right to shoot the criminal. No matter what the crime. Stopping crime does not mean you have carte blanche to do whatever occurs to you to do.

    Manning exercised no restraint. None. He dumped everything he could get his hands on, relied on others to not publish things that shouldn't be published, and eventually the entire dump got hacked.

    I would have voted for a shorter sentence had anyone asked me. But saying Manning should go free is just dumb, because he did commit crimes, and just because he didn't dump the launch codes for Trident missiles doesn't mean nothing of value to other nations was included in that ginormous dump.

    Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

    by blue aardvark on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 10:02:38 AM PDT

    •  Consistency is lacking (32+ / 0-)

      If there was consistency, then I might start listening to what is reasonable and appropriate.

      "Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy

      by LaFeminista on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 10:04:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  PS even if released now he would hardly (36+ / 0-)

      have had no punishment. What is suitable is not the question the question is what is the precedent thus far in the Iraq/Warrenterra fiasco.

      The important people are not even questioned let alone imprisoned.

      "Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy

      by LaFeminista on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 10:07:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Manning possessed evidence of crimes (37+ / 0-)

      What should he have done with them? Go through channels?

      For how well reporting crimes works in our military, see: rape victims, US military.

      Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

      by deben on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 10:14:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If he had revealed exactly and precisely (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        phenry, Jerry056, kitebro, Wee Mama, liberte, duhban

        the evidence of crimes I'd feel quite a bit differently. He revealed everything he could lay hands on.

        Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

        by blue aardvark on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 10:27:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  He should have released that evidence. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        phenry, Jerry056, FG, Kickemout, emelyn

        ONLY that evidence. Not the other 700,000 documents whose contents he neither knew nor cared to know.

      •  That's a false dichotomy. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        phenry, Jerry056, duhban, emelyn

        His choices weren't limited to "shut up and go through channels" or "release as much as he could about anything."

        He could have chosen to release only those materials that constituted evidence of crimes, instead of releasing them alongside a whole bunch of other stuff in which there wasn't even a suggestion of wrongdoing, malfeasance, or criminality, but which was nevertheless damaging to our national interest.

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 10:34:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think we share the same view (16+ / 0-)

          on what actually damages our national interest. The invasion of Iraq, for instance, was one huge war crime which included numerous specific war crimes. What were we doing there that enhanced our national interest?

          And, if you're saying that revealing war crimes damages our national interest, I'll really disagree.

          Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

          by deben on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 10:59:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Were all of the materials Manning released... (0+ / 0-)

            ...materials having to do with the Iraq War?

            No, they were not. Many of the documents Manning released had absolutely nothing to do with that war, or with any other action that could be characterized as criminal, wrong, or malfeasant.

            If he had only released evidence of war crimes, I would be in complete agreement that he shouldn't have been charged or convicted, and that covering up those war crimes was not in our national interest.

            But that wasn't the only thing he released; instead, he released just about everything he could get his hands on, regardless of whether the release of those documents was in our legitimate national interest.

            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

            by JamesGG on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 11:10:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's long overdue and I applaud him for it. (9+ / 0-)

              It is not in our national interest to be at war for oil. It's not in the interest of anyone on this warming planet.

              Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

              by deben on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 11:17:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That doesn't really address my point. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gbaked

                Even if you remove the "war for oil" in Iraq from the equation, Manning released a lot of documents that had nothing to do with that war.

                The release of those documents did damage to things that are legitimately in our national interest—things like maintaining good diplomatic relations with other nations, and like foreign service officers being able to communicate with their superiors in Washington confidentially.

                "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                by JamesGG on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 11:26:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  We would have better diplomatic relations (7+ / 0-)

                  if we weren't making war and threatening to invade even more countries. If a document dump helps prevent massive deaths, it's priceless.

                  And a little egg on some diplomats' faces would improve our national interest imo. Especially if it hinders the start of yet another war for oil.

                  Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

                  by deben on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 11:37:02 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  How many deaths were prevented... (0+ / 0-)

                    ....by Manning's release of documents that had nothing to do with the Iraq War or any other form of wrongdoing or criminality?

                    Let's see the reasoning and evidence you're using here to suggest that the release of a bunch of diplomatic cables that had absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq War or any other wrongdoing, malfeasance, or criminality—cables Manning could have chosen not to release in addition to those that did reveal wrongdoing or criminality—"helped prevent massive deaths."

                    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                    by JamesGG on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 11:43:18 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  As I said elsewhere, yes, it's messy; (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Kevskos, Heart of the Rockies

                      but if in the aggregate, it averts future war crimes, not to mention future wars, I'll take the aggregate mess in a heartbeat.

                      Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

                      by deben on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 11:56:37 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  So again, please lay out your reasoning. (0+ / 0-)

                        What evidence and reasoning are you using to suggest that in the aggregate, Manning's release of the non-war-crimes and non-Iraq-War documents is "averting future war crimes, not to mention future wars"?

                        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                        by JamesGG on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 12:16:50 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  What do I need to lay out that I haven't? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Kevskos

                          The aggregate includes the irrelevant.

                          Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

                          by deben on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 12:25:31 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Whether the irrelevant should have been included.. (0+ / 0-)

                            ...is the whole issue at hand.

                            It's not a given, it's the matter of dispute.

                            I understand that on the whole you think the net gain from the relevant information outweighs the net damage done by the irrelevant information. That's certainly an argument that can be made.

                            But this discussion between us started because I suggested that Manning's choice wasn't a binary between "release everything" or "release nothing," but that he could have chosen to release the relevant information while not releasing the irrelevant information.

                            So the matter of discussion at hand here is whether the irrelevant information alone is worth releasing—not the aggregate as a whole.

                            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                            by JamesGG on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 01:15:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So your position is that Manning (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kevskos

                            should have been super human and read all the documents? Or just assume there are no more war crimes in them than the ones he's already seen and hide the rest?

                            Sounds binary to me.

                            Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

                            by deben on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 01:34:50 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  He should have known what he was releasing. (0+ / 0-)
                            So your position is that Manning should have been super human and read all the documents? Or just assume there are no more war crimes in them than the ones he's already seen and hide the rest?
                            Honestly, yes. My position is that Manning should not have released any classified information to someone that he should have known was going to make that information public, unless he knew exactly what he was revealing. That was his due diligence as a whistleblower.

                            If Manning believed that Assange would post only those documents that were relevant to violations of international law, Manning was still acting well outside the bounds of his duty, in putting the decision on what documents should be classified in the hands of someone who had neither authority nor clearance to do so.

                            The trust that comes with the government giving someone access to classified materials is that they aren't going to release those materials to anyone who isn't authorized to see those materials.

                            In the case where classified documents are concealing violations of the law, revealing those violations trumps the principle of classification of documents, but only for those documents that actually reveal violations of the law. It does not justify making public a whole trove of classified documents because there is a chance that some of them might reveal violations of the law.

                            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                            by JamesGG on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 01:49:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Since Manning is not super human, (0+ / 0-)

                            no one would ever know of any war crimes which he didn't have time to read.

                            You're content with that.

                            In fact, if you were in Manning's shoes, having enlisted during time of (2) wars, assuming you had the guts to reveal war crimes knowing that you would probably go to prison for doing so, you would destroy all of the rest of the possible evidence. Is there reason to believe that you would even reveal the war crimes you were certain of?

                            Myself, I would wish to possess the courage that Bradley Manning has shown, but I haven't been thrust into the position he was: being a witness to war crimes.

                            Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

                            by deben on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 02:26:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's his job to vet what he releases. (0+ / 0-)
                            Since Manning is not super human, no one would ever know of any war crimes which he didn't have time to read.

                            You're content with that.

                            He's the only person in the world with access to that information? Odd, I was under the impression that the number of people with security clearances was greater than 1.

                            Are you suggesting that each and every one of the other people who has a clearance lacks "courage" because they aren't releasing each and every classified document that they can get their hands on on the off chance that those documents might contain evidence of war crimes?

                            Regardless, if he didn't have the time to read it all, then his job was to either set the rest aside and release what he did find that was clear evidence of wrongdoing, or find someone extremely trustworthy, who would be concerned about exposing only violations of law and not simply about publicizing everything, and who would in all cases except legal violation put America's national interest first, to help him sift through the information.

                            Julian Assange was obviously the wrong choice for that, since he has exposed classified information of all stripes including information that doesn't reveal any kind of wrongdoing, and as a foreign national he had neither incentive nor reason to hold off on releasing any document that didn't reveal wrongdoing but that nonetheless would, if released, work against our national interest.

                            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                            by JamesGG on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 03:32:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  As I said, we don't share a view (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Heart of the Rockies

                            of what is in our national interest.

                            And whom with security clearance, in this fantasy, was Manning supposed to share these secrets with? The guy was gay in the DADT Army, alone, and going nuts. Truly ridiculous moralizing from your armchair on what "his job" on reporting these crimes was.

                            How about this question that I posed... Forget the 700,000 documents. Would you yourself have illegally revealed evidence of war crimes and gone to prison for it?

                            Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

                            by deben on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 03:57:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Last time I checked... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...Manning wasn't drafted. He volunteered for the military, and took an oath saying he would follow all lawful orders, no matter what he was going through personally. I sympathize with his plight, but he swore that whenever he was given a lawful order, he would put his duty before his personal feelings.

                            The order to cover up war crimes is not lawful; therefore, in the case of materials exposing war crimes, his orders to keep that material classified were null and void, and he had a duty to bring those materials to light. Had he released only those materials, I would be standing alongside those who praise him as a hero and a whistleblower.

                            However, the order to keep classified material that doesn't expose criminality or wrongdoing out of the hands of those who aren't authorized to see it—and definitely out of public viewing—is a completely and unquestionably lawful order. Whether or not you believe it to be in the national interest that such information be kept secret, there is no principle of democratic governance that suggests that each and every person authorized to access classified material has the authority to unilaterally decide whether it should continue to be classified.

                            The way I see it, he had two duties: To disobey the unlawful order to keep secret those classified materials that he encountered that constituted clear evidence of criminality or wrongdoing, and to obey the lawful order to keep secret those classified materials that he encountered that did not constitute such evidence. He could have succeeded in the first duty without failing at the second.

                            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                            by JamesGG on Thu Aug 22, 2013 at 06:50:40 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Just as you are making demands that evidence (5+ / 0-)

                          be laid out, it's only fair that you do the same. How, with whom, were relationships damaged because of Manning's releases? Did any country cut us off? I haven't noticed. All evidence points to the fact that most countries continue to collaborate with the U.S. and in some cases in unprecedented ways. The Evo Morales incident would be a very good example. Methods were exposed? I don't think so, I recently have read a trove of documents including diplomatic cables from the U.S. Embassy in Madrid to Henry Kissinger and others in State Department from the Franco era and quite honestly they look a lot like what Manning released but in other areas and circumstances, of course. Reading those cables from that era are really unsurprising as to what the U.S. position was on Franco and towards Spain. Who do you think around the world is surprised by these revelations (Manning's or the Franco papers)? I suspect very few and the most naive, but not governments and its functionaries at many levels.

                          Most, if not all of the damage, was done way before Manning, Manning just provided the confirmation. Reality is that the U.S. brand has been damaged for a long time and in some quarters more than others and depending on if you are an ally or a foe. Truth is no one's reputation is pristine around the world, not even close. That's par for the course and I understand that the U.S., and any other country, has to act in its own national interest and sometimes that requires not being nice, but this should not be a surprise to anyone and we shouldn't kid ourselves as to having any moral advantage over others. In fact the double standard that the U.S. has demonstrated on how vigorously it went after Manning and how lightly and benevolently has treated others for war crimes like the Haditha massacre, is much more damaging to the U.S. than anything Manning ever did.

                          I would venture to say that the Manning releases did more damage here at home in the U.S. than it did abroad. It lifted a veil that many Americans had refused to see through for way too long. But how is that damaging to our national interests and or security? Unless keeping our own people ignorant is in our national security interest, but how? It damaged our prides perhaps, but national security? Perhaps you can prove me wrong and I am eager to listen, but just because an administration, any administration,  says that it damaged our national security and interests without laying out any specific evidence is rather unconvincing. Yes, Manning broke the law, that is irrefutable, but the question remains: how specifically did he damage our national security interests?

                          "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -John F. Kennedy

                          by basquebob on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 02:31:50 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

            •  It's in our interest to know what our government (11+ / 0-)

              is doing in our names.

              But when you say "our national interest", I hear Kissingers voice.

              Mr. Universe is a known degenerate Robotophile, and his sources include former Browncoat Traitors. What is their agenda in leaking top secret information about the Reavers and endangering us all?

              by JesseCW on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 11:41:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And if you could guarantee... (0+ / 0-)

                ....that only American citizens would be able to access, read, or divulge any of the information in those documents, and that no foreign national would ever lay eyes upon them, that would be a much stronger case.

                You can't guarantee that, of course; nobody can.

                Which is why no government on this planet—not even among the most democratic governments in the world—operates with complete transparency by releasing each and every document generated within that government to the public.

                "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                by JamesGG on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 11:46:47 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's utterly irrelevant to this conversation (9+ / 0-)

                  whether only American citizens would be able to know what our government is doing in our names.

                  A global hegemony is not in our interests.  It's only in the interests of those who rule us, and those who gain status and privilege by serving those who rule us.

                  Mr. Universe is a known degenerate Robotophile, and his sources include former Browncoat Traitors. What is their agenda in leaking top secret information about the Reavers and endangering us all?

                  by JesseCW on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 11:51:12 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  "Utterly irrelevant"? Hardly. (0+ / 0-)
                    It's utterly irrelevant to this conversation whether only American citizens would be able to know what our government is doing in our names.
                    No, it isn't "utterly irrelevant" at all.

                    The only documents that Manning released that any foreign national would have any legitimate right to read, are those that reveal violations of international law. Those are the only documents relevant to their interests, as they speak to the interest of the human race in ensuring that human rights violations are punished.

                    Even those that reveal violations of American law but not international law (corruption, etc. that isn't an international issue) are of no legitimate interest to a foreign national, though they are of legitimate interest to an American holding his/her government accountable.

                    However, the bulk of the documents released by Manning contained neither of those things. They contained information that no foreign national has any legitimate right to or interest in seeing, information that our government has every right to keep from foreign nationals.

                    What you seem to be suggesting is the opposite of that—that because America is a "global hegemony," the American government now owes each and every person in the world complete transparency, and is accountable to each and every person in the world, not just to the American citizens in whose name and interest it acts. Am I reading you correctly?

                    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                    by JamesGG on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 12:14:02 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  He did go through channels. (10+ / 0-)

        Channels told him to fuck off.

        You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

        by Johnny Q on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 11:19:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Also, the unredacted release (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LeftOverAmerica

          of the full set of files was a mistake, a two-part fuck-up between a lapse in compartmentalization by Assange and the public release of an encryption key by a misguided Guardian reporter.

          Assange gave a Guardian reporter the key to the "just in case" encrypted file he had sent around the world, and the reporter published that key in a book despite promising to keep it secret. It was never supposed to happen, but it did.

          Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

          by Simplify on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 02:56:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  he did try to go thru (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        deben

        Channels. He did bring them to his commanding officer andvwas told to  STFU.
        Just like a few other whistleblowers.
        Sama as with the torture  at Abu.

        Passing a law that the Constitution doesn't allow does not negate the Constitution, it negates the law that was passed. Secret courts can't make up secret laws. SORRY FOR THE TYPOS :)

        by snoopydawg on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 08:40:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The context of hypocrisy (32+ / 0-)

      In Kevin Gosztola's report for FireDogLake there is this paragraph:

      The government in its sentencing closing argument on August 19 argued, "There is value in deterrence, Your Honor. This court must send a message to any soldier contemplating stealing classified information. National security crimes that undermine the entire system must be taken seriously. Punish Pfc. Manning’s actions, Your Honor."
      These are the government prosecutor's words: "There is value in deterrence, Your Honor. This court must send a message to any soldier contemplating stealing classified information."

      So Barack Obama's government believes there is "value in deterrence." A message must be sent to any soldier contemplating "stealing classified information."

      How come there was no "value in deterrence" when it came to setting up a torture regime in violation of the UN Convention Against Torture, to which the US is a signatory (meaning it is binding US law)? Barack Obama's "look forward, not backward" stance when it came to the crimes of the Bush Administration sent a message, also. The message it sent was that if you are a powerful government official and you abuse your power--even to the point of inflicting death--you can expect to get away with it.

      So we have two messages sent. If you commit crimes that arguably do tremendous damage to the standing of the United States--not to mention the damage done directly to the victims of those crimes--you need not fear the law or accountability. But if you reveal crimes, you are sentenced to lose more than three decades of your life.

      What is the effect of such hypocrisy? It empowers tyranny. It empowers tyranny by ensuring bad actors that they will get away with it and by threatening those who would reveal the regime's criminality with wrathful vengeance.

      There is a synergy to this hypocrisy that threatens to strangle American democracy. I think it's deeply disconcerting that so many Kossacks can't see how the interaction is exceptionally dangerous.

      Bet folks would see it if it was a Republican president in power.

    •  the two "crimes" are connected (20+ / 0-)

      revealing the first crime is, apparently, a crime. It gets punished.

      But the first crime, which kills people, never does.

      That sure isn't justice.

      Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 10:32:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  so. we grunts on the ground need to have restraint (20+ / 0-)

      but the bankers and brokers can steal our money, our houses, our retirement accounts? no restraint required?

      George W. Bush can lie his way into war with Iraq to fill the coffers of his buddies? Haliburton got money for nothing, corporations are persons... but Bradley Manning shoulda showed some restraint?

      i mean what part of these last years has had any fucking restraint. oh, i know:

      ironic that the one place those in power exercised restraint was in dealing with Fukushima... which is when they should NOT HAVE... when every expert and country should have banded together to deal with that disaster, one that threatens an entire fucking ocean.

      restraint. Manning needed to show restraint. wow. that might be the silliest thing i've heard yet.

      “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Buckminster Fuller

      by pfiore8 on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 10:48:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're back to some criminals go free so all must (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jerry056, phenry, edwardssl, liberte, duhban

        And that's still wrong.

        The list of crimes where someone is getting away with it brought in to defend Private Manning grows ever longer. Now it's Fukashima.

        Judas Iscariot was never tried so I suppose that excuses Fukashima by comparison. And Stalin murdered tens of millions so that excuses Bush. And so on, and so on.

        Or just stop with the "look! Squirrel! BIG SQUIRREL STEALING BIG NUTS!" approach and address
        1) Did Manning have to do exactly what he did to expose the crimes in question, or could he have done less, and
        2) Is there a material difference between what he did, and what he could have done and still exposed the crimes, and
        3) Is the difference between "exposed crimes" and "dumped everything he could lay his hands on" a violation of the UCMJ?

        Since the answers are yes, he could have done less; yes, it would have made a difference; and yes, he broke the law to an even greater degree by dumping everything;
        then, he's a criminal.

        Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

        by blue aardvark on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 10:55:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  During the Depression (0+ / 0-)

      bank robbers were seen as folk heroes. And their crimes were often seen as heroic. Thankfully, the government wasn't as sentimental in their dealings with them. If people like the crimes being committed, they feel they should go unpunished. Times change, but human nature doesn't.

    •  Nope. (3+ / 0-)
      If I, as a private citizen, see a crime being committed, I am still required to exercise restraint. If I can stop the crime by shouting, I have no right to shoot the criminal. No matter what the crime.
      I think you may have forgotten about the 31 states in which 'Stand Your Ground' legislation is in effect.
    •  Given that Manning DID expose grave (15+ / 0-)

      crimes that would have remained hidden from public exposure had he NOT acted, and given that, initially, he DID exercise restraint by attempting to go through channels, but was rebuffed for his efforts, and given that he has ALREADY SERVED three years of incarceration, which is three years longer than have been served by known war criminals, and given that nearly a year of that incarceration was under barbarous conditions, then, yes, JUSTICE would demand that he now be set free, having already been punished MORE than is reasonable, given all of the above.

      It fucking amazes me that people would consider releasing Manning now for time served equivalent to letting him off. For fuck sake, he's already been tortured for his crimes.

      Let the 28th Amendment be one to amend the amendment process itself. Then, perhaps, we can transform our Constitution into a living document. (Who CARES what the Founders thought of digital data gathering?)

      by WisePiper on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 11:59:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Were you ever in the Military? n/t (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      3goldens, truong son traveler, grover

      "[I]n the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone...They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

      by cardboardurinal on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 12:54:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Your analogy: (2+ / 0-)

      What Manning did was like shooting to stop a crime, rather than shouting.

      Actually, Manning shouted.  He did not shoot anybody.

      The people who killed fleeing bystanders, including a journalist, were shooting.  They failed to exercise "restraint."

    •  The question has to be asked. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Heart of the Rockies

      Where is the line for you?

      What principle would Obama have to violate, for you to stop defending him?

      What principles are important enough for you, that you would abandon defending the Obama Administration in order to defend those principles?

      In the Fox News Christian Nation, public schools won't teach sex education and evolution; instead they'll have an NRA sponsored Shots for Tots: Gunz in Schoolz program.

      by xynz on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 07:20:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site