Bitcoin Forum

Everybody forgot him, along with Assange
All my best wishes for a good ending of this "trial" parody that starts today

He is a traitor who deserves to rot in prison.

For how long? Of course he deserves some punishment for breaking his oath, but how much is fair?

Life in prison is not fair. Also what is with the stories of torture? No matter what he could have done, that should not happen.

Let's watch it play out in court.

The same could have easily been said about Thomas Jefferson.

He disseminated classified information and gave intel to our countries enemies. That's more than breaking an oath, that's treason.

He knew what the consequences of betraying his country were (particularly being in the military), and now he was to pay those consequences.

Who committed treason first, though? The person who exposed someone else in government doing illegal things, or the actual people doing those illegal things?

Bradley Manning was the only person committing treason.

Had he been captured by England, he would have been executed (and they would have had a justifiable reason to do so). So, I agree.

Freedom comes at a cost, and that means punishing those who would try to undermine it.

Actually, can you please explain why exposing someone in government who has done something illegal a treason? Why was exposing the people who outed Vallerie Plame treason? Why was exposing that Ronald Reagan was secretly selling weapons to terrorists in order to fund a private secret war treason? Why was exposing that IRS was targeting Tea Party members treason? Why did the entire Senate commit treason when they exposed Bill Clinton's private sexual relationship?

Or, do you even know what Bradley Manning actually did?

So saying publicly and proving that USA kills and tortures people undermines your freedom?


So what? Did anything happen thanks to that?

It was treason because he stole and released classified documents pertinent to national security. Period.
 
Yes, I would consider outing an active CIA agent (plume) as treason as well, and everyone involved should have been tried and imprisoned or executed.

The Iran-Contra scandal itself was an act of high treason, but the exposure of such was not (a downed plane uncovered the scandal and a subsequent investigation was launched.)

The IRS targeting Tea Party individuals is illegal and immoral, but not treason as it was not a threat to national security or a violation of the Espionage Act.

Clinton wasn't exposed by the senate, he was exposed by Linda Trip. He was also acquitted and his crime (perjury) had nothing to do with national security, so there was nothing even remotely treasonous about this case.

He stole and released critical intelligence that could result in harming diplomatic relations, and put American soldiers lives at risk during wartime (which is aiding and abetting the enemy).  He intentionally violated the Espionage Act, and as someone with a security clearance, he knew the risks. Violation of the Espionage Act carries with it a penalty of death.

If he was unprepared to accept those consequences, he should've kept his treasonous mouth shut.

I suppose you people think Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen are heroes too, huh?

Fixed

Wow. Is it that tough to answer?

Hint: the red question just needs a Yes or a No
Hint: the green question just needs a Yes or a No

The first is not a "yes or no" question, because it is a leading question.  It doesn't really matter what the classified documents reveal, because stealing and releasing classified documents is illegal and a clear act of espionage.  If he felt that something illegal was happening, he should've gone through the proper channels and had it investigated.

For your second question, yes.

Does saying publicly and proving that USA kills and tortures people undermines your freedom?

How is a video from a helicopter showing the pilots gunning down reporters and civilians "pertinent to national security," and why was it classified, other than to hide a crime?



I didn't ask how those things were all treason, I asked how releasing information that these crimes all happened treason? Manning released information about a crime. He didn't commit the crime. Why is his releasing information about a crime treason, but the reporters releasing information about these other crimes not treason?

Did they help expose any criminal acts perpetrated by government officials?

Weren't the people who committed those crimes the ones who made the documents classified in the first place???

The government is not a hive mind, nor is everyone in the government (or even most of he government) complicit in the alleged crimes....and yes, government officials investigate other government officials all the time, it's how the justice system works.

They sold identities of active CIA agents to the Russians. Since espionage is technically illegal, yes.

you just indicted every single politician in the world.

By showing when where and how American troops are operating in a war zone, you endanger other soldiers operating in that war zone.

That said, he released a few hundred thousand classified documents, not just a video on an airstrike.

Ok.
I wasn't aware Manning sold the documents to Assange. Also we don't care about other people, stop trying to deviate the thread.

Plenty of other posts you didn't answer btw.

The War logs stopped before the release: last War log in December 2009, release in October 2010

This thread is so amusing that I am considering unignoring the SEC agent. In the mean time, my response to OP: Bradley Manning is a true American hero.

It doesn't matter if he sold the documents or not, he stole and illegally released classified documents.


I've answered the relevant ones.

Wait, wait, wait. Full stop.

What WAR? The United States is not at war. Yes, they are actively murdering people in foreign lands, but ONLY Congress can declare war. Wartime rules DO NOT apply to this case absent that declaration.

If you deny this, then you are saying the Constitution is invalid (as opposed to useless, which it demonstrably is.). If you say the Constitution is VALID, then EVERY SINGLE BELLIGERENT ACT committed by the United States since 1945 has been demonstrably illegal. If you deny THIS, then you are back to the first part. A lawless government has no validity. Either the Constitution says what it means, or it means nothing.

In order to prove treason, even absent the above, you would have to demonstrate SUBSTANTIALLY that Manning gave aid and comfort to the enemy, since he in fact did the very opposite of making war against the States in pointing out to their alleged citizens that the people in charge were engaging in criminal activity under the color of law. Whistleblowers are not traitors. I would argue that they are patriots.

I again refer you to Thomas Jefferson. Since you've already outed yourself as a Tory sympathizer, you probably don't care.

How is that relevant? It doesn't matter if it was in the past, it still reveals critical OPSEC information.

FTFY

 The Iraq War (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War) which was authorized by  a joint resolution by the senate and congress (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution).  

That said, there doesn't need to be a "declared war" for Mannings actions to be considered illegal. Releasing classified information in "peacetime" is still espionage.

so an unconstitutional law trumps the constitution. And you are changing your arguments. Thank you, you have clarified your position. Here's a quote from another "traitor". It was written long before either of us were born (or hatched, as may be your case), but it was aimed directly at you.

Show me the Supreme Court ruling that says that the Iraq War (and every other military conflict since ww2) is unconstitutional, or even illegal.

The war was started and approved through legal means (the joint resolution). You may interpret it differently, but the Supreme Court doesn't (and they are the ones tasked with interpreting constitutional law).

Your armchair  freeman style (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land) legal interpretation means exactly fuckall when it comes to how the law and constitution actually works.

Just as Manning's and Wikileak's actions mean exactly fuckall when it comes to things like classified documents. Or bitcoin means exactly fuckall when it comes to money laundering and financial controls. Or 3D printing means exactly fuckall when it comes to gun control.   ;D

Judging from your incoherent response, smiley, and kitty avatar, I'm going to guess that you are probably just a child, and leave my response at this; you will understand all of this when you get older, for now go outside and play with your friends and don't worry about all of this scary grown-up stuff.

Ok! Buh-bye!!!!  ;D

Furries are always matured and grown men.

Furthermore, I think Rassah is definitely older than SEC, and if he's not, then SEC must be a grumpy old grandpa that should go outside and yell at the kids on his lawn to.. get off his lawn.

It's not interesting. Furries gravitate towards eachother like magnets. Their fronts always connecting to the others' rear. :P

I just looked it up...and then promptly erased my browser history (thanks).  So you perverts want to fuck cartoon animals or something?  Is this common amongst bitcoiners?

Wait, no...nevermind.  I think "ignorance is bliss" applies here.

This is fairly accurate.

About fucking animals? Absolutely. Having sex with animals is wrong.

Geez, you think furries are perverts? have you read fifty shades of grey?  Furries don't even have sex with animals, that's called bestality.

So you are sexually attracted to animals, but don't have sex with them?

That is marginally better, but still disgusting.

he is correct. furthermore, not all furries are even sexual. many furries are simply hobbyists.

So what you are saying is, before you personally fuck an animal, you make sure to get its consent? ( because it sounds like you are speaking from experiance here)

So, how exactly does an animal consent to rape, and why do you feel the need to defend perverts who rape animals?

Sexualizing animals is a very strange hobby.

So you ARE sexually attracted to animals then?

I wouldn't fuck any animals, OR humans.. probably.

I'm sure dogfuckers around the world appreciate you standing up for them, but despite your personal opinion, having sex with an animal is not only wrong, but is also rape.

Yeah, that doesn't make it any better.

"No, see..it's different...The dog was walking upright and was just begging for it...it's totally cool, guys."

I don't believe in "owning" pets at all, much less forced breeding or castration.

Now back to your disgusting perversion; when did you first notice that you were attracted to animals?

Yes.

The fact that I have to explain to a group of adults (presumably) that fucking animals is wrong, boggles my mind.

That is stupid. Rape isnt "sex that is wrong". It deals specifically with the issue of consent or lack their of.

Sorry, cartoon animals (which is a completely different thing).



Why? Because, like a child, mentally ill person, or someone drunk or drugged, they are not capable of consent.  In addition, their inability to effectively communicate wants, needs, and so forth clearly means they can not vocalize consent (even if they were capable).  

Do you really think that not moving, attacking, or running away counts as consent? I guess it's free game on people who are drunk or drugged..." No officer, I know she was in a drug stupor, but she didn't run when I penetrated her, so it's not rape".

Wait, what? Drunk or drugged people cant legally consent because they are not considered mentally capable to consent.  This is why "date rape" is such a serious issue.  It has nothing to do with physical capability.


When a person of full mental capabilities has sex with someone with severe mental retardation, it is rape, and the law views it as such.


Nope, when an human takes advantage of an animal, it is rape. As I stated before, the animal does not have the mentally ability to consent to sex with a person (in the same a way child isnt mentally capable) and even worse cannot communicate its consent (even if it were possible).  Rape does occur in the animal kingdom amongst animals, but that has very little to do with what we are discussing, nor is it everytime.


Are we done with your bullshit strawmen arguments now?  

Look, no matter which way you try to characterize it, when you fuck your cat, you are raping it...even if Ms. Whiskers was laying provocatively on your couch and you are really sure she wants it, it is still rape.

So the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why an animal is capable of consenting to sex with another animal but incapable of consenting to sex with a human. as specifically as possible please explain why this is the case.

Are you serious?

Our legal system has a clear definition of "sexual consent" and "rape" that (like all of our laws) pertains to human action, not what animals do to each other.    

A cat raping another cat has absolutely nothing to do with a human raping a cat.

Maybe, maybe not.

Even if you haven't, you sure are fighting hard for people who do, and that's not much better

Its not about the law (or more specifically, whats legal and where), but about the clearly defined legal terms "consent" and "rape".

No, by the legal definition of "consent", a human cannot have consensual sex with an animal.  Period.  "Consent" and "rape" have no legal definition outside of human interaction. 

I think all of that catsex has made you a little slow, because we seem to be going in circles here.


Lets try this another way. If we were discussing dogfighting, cockfighting, or other form of extreme physical animal abuse, would you defend it by saying "well animals fight in nature, so it must be ok"?  I would hope not, because its asinine to compare the two situations.  In a dogfight, the humans are clearly coercing the animals to fight, and even though it may be in the dogs nature to fight when cornered, it is being forced to fight.  In this case, the dog is clearly being abused (regardless of whether animal violence also happens in nature).

 

Rapists should not only be discriminated against, but also locked away from society forever.

You know what other group of people use the exact same line of reasoning for their actions?

Child molesters.

Just like them, you can dance around the topic of your perversion all you like, and you can try to justify it however you see fit, but when it comes down to it you are just another disgusting rapist.

Whatever makes you feel better about being a catfucker, pervert

frankly i couldn't care less what sociopaths in silly hats think about the definitions of words. i believe rape means non-consensual sex. you are entitled to believe that it means something else if you wish.

It sounds like you're just too stubborn to admit that what they're saying kinda makes sense mate.

No, I'm tired of watching crazy people doing mental gymnastics to justify raping animals. This isn't the type of discussion that should warrant multiple pages.

Seriously, you bicoiners are sick.  

I've noticed since the Bradley Manning / Wikileaks thing started that the conservatives that hate our government so much are the first to jump to defend it and call Bradley a traitor. Our government is the one committing war crimes in our name. Bradley simply aired their dirty laundry. He's a hero and the government will continue to spew mountains of propaganda to make you hate him. He's just a kid with a conscience. If you can't see that you're probably more of traitor to freedom than you say he is.

I, uh, have nothing to do with those two

<.<
>.>
o.o

*walks off stage*

Also, those cute fuzzy koalas are the rapiest animals in all of animal kingdom. The moar you know.

Don't worry, most of us can see this.  SEC agent is just the literal definition of idiot:


Well, he's one or the other, anyway.  I'm not sure if patriots count as mentally handicapped.

Indeed, the off-topic started at the first reply

If an off-topic topic becomes so overwhelming to the thread, that it becomes the only topic, is it still off-topic, or is it the new on-topic?

https://i.imgur.com/o8H72dT.png

:P

Back on topic, since it is something of concern to me.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/06/assange-issues-statement-on-first-day.html#more (http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/06/assange-issues-statement-on-first-day.html#more)

It's only treason if people died as a result. Did people die as a result?
Otherwise I don't see how it's worse than what Robert Hanssen did, or Aldrich Ames. What Aldrich Ames did was treason.

Bradley Manning did not release any Top Secret information. The Cables were not Top Secret.
That is not to say what he did was right, but how is it treason? It's not even the worst espionage in US history if you want to call it that. The only case for calling it espionage is the fact that Julian Assange is an austrlian so maybe it could be viewed like that but why would it be treason when that kind of stuff goes on all the time and no one else has been charged with treason or espionage even?

Not sure if SEC agent is actually a troll or just suffering Fractal Wrongness.

See, that is the kind of stuff which should be leaked but okay say that torture and murder documents do get leaked, what exactly does it change?

MKUltra already was released officially and unclassified and the US always had the authority to kill and just never exercised it. I do see your point but the problem is there is no accountability even if crimes are leaked, who exactly are you supposed to leak it to and what can they do about it anyway? These are legit questions.

The problem with exposing the crime to the people is that it helps the enemy government. So I understand SEC Agent's concern. I also understand the concern about governments abusing citizens killing and torturing them. There has to be a balance where SEC Agent admits that in the case of murder and torture the information has to be leaked but in the case of damn near everything else, what business does the general public have to know it and what right does Bradley Manning or whomever else have to leak it?

A government which kills and tortures people, it might be worth risking going to jail to protect people from that. At the same time anyone who is brave enough to leak that might not live to see the jail, it's not like it's safe to leak stuff like that.

I think the world is better off knowing that the US government uses torture because now the US government cannot keep lying and saying it never tortured anyone. The documents are out there whether they got leaked or were declassified they are out there. The fact that torture ever was allowed should be reason enough to never trust the US government, how do you trust any institution which tortures innocent people or terrorists?

The issue is that releasing classified documents that endanger american lives is the wrong way to bring attention to acts that may be illegal.

If manning was concerned that illegal acts were being performed by his peers in the military, he should have gone through the proper channels and had it investigated.  We even have whistleblower protection laws to prevent any retaliation from the Feds as a result.

By taking it into his own hands (and knowingly committing treason in the process), he sealed his own fate.

He released classified documents. The exact classification (ie: whether those documents were TS, SCI, S, C, or R) is irrelevant.

The act of illegaly disseminating classified information is treason.

If Manning had stood up like a man and gone through the proper channels, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Hell, I might've even joined with you guys and called him a hero.

Instead, he chose to hide behind a computer and endanger American lives...so he is going to get what he deserves (jail time or execution).

So is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Manning's "treason", as patriotism will always be labeled, is minor compared to that REGULARLY committed by the government trying him.

Actually, under the constitutional definition of treason, Manning would have to be proved to have done harm against the STATES, not the FedGov, and to have caused harm by giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Despite these arguments being deliberately absented at the show trial.

They have a better case for embezzelment than treason.

As for your comments about the proper chain of command, those are the very people that are outed by these leaks. Telling Al Capone that he's doing something questionable to his face is imprudent. Catch-22.

I'd like to think you aren't as ignorant of the facts as you appear. But I've unfortunately met a lot of you flag wavin' "my country, right or wrong" sorts, and you probably are. YOU are a bigger threat to the people of these former states than Mr. Manning, OR Julian Assange, who is NOT the "enemy". Last I checked, Australia (and all commonwealth nations) are formal allies of the US Imperial court.

Two things.

First, as was mentioned earlier in the thread, your knowledge of the law is nonexistent, and your silly freeman constitutionalist reading of the law is not supported or interpreted the same way by the justice system. What he did was treason whether you personally believe it or not.

Second, crimes committed by people at all levels of government (up to and including the president) are successfully investigated and tried by the government on a daily basis. You can ignore this fact all you like, but it doesn't change the fact.  

Manning was too much of a coward to actually stand up for his convictions, so he tried to hide behind a computer and got caught.  If he wanted to be a whistleblower, there are perfectly legal ways to do so (none of which endanger American lives).

Why do you assume he would go through his own chain of command?

Proper channels for him to use as a military whistleblower would include anything from tipping off CID/NCIS/OSI, to contacting his Congressman (or other high level government official), and everything in between.

Manning had quite a few options, but chose to betray his country out of cowardice.

Let's sum up: there were perfectly legal ways to disclose the acts and he would have been protected so this would have been no drawbacks at all for him to go through the "proper channels"
Yet, he decided ("chose") to pick the riskiest way to do so

So according to you, deliberately choosing the riskiest way makes him a coward
Makes sense

if bradly manning swore an oath to the constitution than he necessarily does not owe an allegiance to the united states military because the united states military is actively violating the constitution each and every day.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html

He did swear to protect against enemies, foreign and domestic. You don't exactly have the "domestic" enemy declare to you that they are an enemy. It's a personal judgement call.

Why do you quote George Washington?   Is he your hero?   Didn't he ambush and murder the established government's soldiers to escalate a war?   Wouldn't that be terrorism?   Or treason?

No, my love of the law is nonexistent. Every single thing that the anti-federalists warned against in abandoning the articles of confederation has come to pass, including a government that has ALL the power. We all know damn well that this leak was embarrassing to the highest levels of the diplomatic corps for doing just exactly what they were bombing other people for.

Had you followed this story outside of Faux news, you would be aware that he DID try other channels and got the "we are taking care of it" bullshit that you would expect. He's a computer geek, so he took a decision and went with what he knew how to do. Cowardice is refusal to commit "treason" when those you "betray" are selling you and everyone you love down the river. You might put a lot of labels on what he did and have some validity. Under Imperial law, treason will probably stick, though given the deliberate shackling of the defense they are clearly not as certain of that as you are.

You called down Godwin on me before, but even you MUST see the similarity between this and the People's Courts.

As for constitutional interpretation belonging solely to the Supreme Court, I think you need a serious history lesson. Lincoln's treasonous war, by the CONSTITUTIONAL definition of treason, settled that secession was dangerous, not that it wasn't the right of the states. His idiotic idea that states that preexisted the union couldn't have been formed without the union shouldn't have ever been given ANY credence. Then again, perhaps the American public has always had a problem with temporal reality...

As someone from ex-Soviet Union, this is some Stalinist shit right here.

"In the 80s capitalism triumphed over communism. In the 90-00s it triumphed over democracy."

It's all bought and paid for and they'll do anything they can keep the bullshit running.

Let me guess...
SEC is also ok with torturing Edward Snowden?