Bradley Manning

[SEC agent]

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

So what? Did anything happen thanks to that?

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.

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?

Apparently, he thinks yes. Even though the government is abusing the ability to classify things to hide their crimes, exposing those crimes to the people should totally still be punishable by death.  

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.

[SEC agent]

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?

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.

[SEC agent]

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).

[Biomech]

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?

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.

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.

[SEC agent]

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).

[SEC agent]

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.

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.

[jackjack]

We even have whistleblower protection laws to prevent any retaliation from the Feds as a result.

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.

If he wanted to be a whistleblower, there are perfectly legal ways to do so (none of which endanger American lives).

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

[Anon136]

Who committed treason first, though?

Bradley Manning was the only person committing treason.

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?

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.

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

[Rassah]

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.

[Minor Miner]

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.

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.

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?

[Biomech]

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).

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...

[Rassah]

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

[tiberiandusk]

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.

[jackjack]

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