Just wondering what people think of Manning and if he is a hero for releasing the classified documents and videos or a traitor for "aiding the enemy". Not one US serviceman or woman has suffered from his release of documents, mainly it caused embarrassment for Ambassadors who were two faced double talking and just turned opinion into fact. It also had shown the almost contempt for civilians in combat areas in BF reports. The families of the Reuters reporter and his driver finally after two years of unsuccessfully trying to find out what happened for two years, eventually found out what happened to those two men and how they were butchered because they had armed protection in a combat area. Also the video of the hellfire attack on a building video where a passer by gets vaporised and the subsequent interview by an ex US serviceman who later entered the building that there were only dead women and children in the building clearly put into context the rules of engagement and complete lack of consideration for civilian casualties. Manning has been given 35 years in prison. Does he deserve it?
Manning should be seen as a hero for exposing US war crimes. I'm not surprised he's been dealt with so harshly,the US military establishment hate the truth being told.
Feel sorry for him. He saw things that he thought were wrong, Okay he went the wrong way about it but the truth would be brushed under the carpet no matter what he tried.
Yup it's pretty wrong that exposing crimes gets you 35 years. Leaking it is the only way to get it out there. I mean when a kiddy fiddler gets less time in prison than that, you have to question the US
Agreed. It's all about sending out a message, so why not send out a message to all the peados? Instead of welcoming them into protective custody and giving them special human rights. I wouldn't say he was a hero, and certainly not a villain. Just a poor sod.
It took a whole heap of courage to do what he did right or wrong, to sacrifice everything he worked for up to that point and the risks he took. I think what Snowden done was possibly in part inspired by Manning's actions.
Unfortunately not it is not just the US. The French Israeli and UK governments are all in cahoots and pressure is applied to the rest of Europe via the IMF, pretty much, if you don't do as we say the money will stop flowing Look at the guardian reporter's partner being detained at the airport and all his devices taken from him and passwords demanded from his under the prevention of terrorism act, condoned by Cameron himself.
Look at the detention of a Guardian journalist's partner on the basis of 'anti-terrorism' laws. Laws enacted in the wake of 9/11, supposedly for our security, are being used to ensure that democratically elected governments are able to keep EMBARRASSING information (bugger all to do with security) from its citizens - or in our case 'subjects'. They even used anti-terrorism laws against Iceland in 2009 after the economic crash to try and get back money that councils had parked in their (unsustainably) high interest banks. Truth of the matter is that if you give the dark, shadowy 'authorities' and state agencies discreet powers to be used judiciously they will inevitably use them at some stage simply because they can. Ask yourself why someone joined MI5, the CIA, the NSA or MI6 in the first place - it's the ultimate power trip, Like giving a bully a caged bear and an electric prod and asking them to only use it when they think its necessary.
This is a really complex and difficult issue. Nations have to have security to prevent themselves from being vulnerable to enemies (and they are out there-it isn't just paranoia). However, the blanket of security can very easily be used to cover immoral or criminal activity, and anyone party to this information may find their conscience troubling them. The problem is that morality is subjective, whereas criminality is enshrined by law. Manning clearly broke the law by releasing restricted documents and they're always going to be able to get him for that. If his actions reveal illegal activity in others then that needs to be investigated. The wider issue of the ethical nature of the activities he exposed is always going to be held as separate to the legality of his methods, and will obviously cause heated debate for some time to come.
Good post. My issue is that sometimes the laws are in place to prevent the revealing of the illegality within. They are vaguely worded so they can be applied to almost any situation. unfortunately common sense has no place in the courts. When you break rules for the benefit of the system there should be mitigation, there was none for Manning because the military system decided his future, the very one that acted illegally which led to him having to break the rules in the first place. There was a need to combine what he did and why with the system of law, they were treated totally separately, he faces 35 years and those that committed crimes are protected by the very system that has given him pretty much life imprisonment. Secret court orders for example, are there to prevent breaches of the constitution from coming to light, that is their primary purpose imo
obviously, being convicted of crimes One military judge and no jury also decided the verdict and sentence. Unfortunately he doesn't have a friend like George Bush jnr who can pardon a friend's sentence
Manning gets 35 years for doing what he wanted with information he was not allowed to have. Yet the US government can do what it likes with information it's not allowed to have – if nothing else, Prism has taught us that.
****ing hell! Totally agree these laws are laws of self preservation not of the public but the state and its agencies
