What is the reason the GLBT Community doesn't support Bradley Manning?

[KoKo]

Last edited Thu May 30, 2013, 01:55 PM - Edit history (1)

I've tried to understand this and can't come up with anything that makes sense. ON EDIT: I posted this in the thread and assumed folks saw it...obviously not, even when I referred to Post 13. So posting here in the OP.

#t=41s

Bradley Manning is Grand Marshal! Pride Meeting 7 May 2013
YouTube posted May 9, 2013 by MayaMediated

YouTube info: Includes the only photos from inside the meeting! "They say court martial! We say grand marshal!" Why did Pride cancel making Bradley Manning Grand Marshal of Pride 2013? Why did they ban the press from their meeting? Sure looks like the corporate sponsors want a nice, squeaky clean party with no reminders that Pride is about fighting for human rights and that the celebration honors a RIOT. Forget the Pride committee. The community has spoken: Bradley Manning IS Grand Marshal.

* * *

Kevin Gosztola did a great recap of this botched meeting (How San Francisco Pride Is Perpetuating a Scandal by Not Reinstating Bradley Manning as Grand Marshal). I started following links and ended up at this youtube, wanted to share, did the screenshot-transcript thing below, but really it's better just to watch. Hats off, with a special bow to Daniel Ellsberg. So good to see him here standing up for fellow whistleblower and American hero Bradley Manning.

http://www.correntewire.com/bradley_manning_is_grand_marshal_scenes_from_the_pride_board_meeting_san_francisco_may_7_2

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. Lots of us do. I do.

I think some of the hesitancy relates to the struggle over DADT and then having a gay guy challenge a lot of the core ideas and attitudes of US militarism itself.

Screw that. I think he's great.

Edit: Now see here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113726569

[geek tragedy]

2. Many in the GLBT community do.

But, his actions and his punishment have nothing to do with his sexual orientation or identity, but rather different considerations.

[dballance]

3. His incarceration is not an LGBT issue.

He's not being incarcerated or prosecuted due to his sexual orientation. He's being prosecuted due to the administration's over-reaching on prosecuting whistle-blowers and their contempt for Wikileaks. The government really dislikes being embarrassed with facts they don't want out there. That's true of both major parties. Though Obama's administration has taken it to a new level.

I support his decision to leak the documents in the same manner that the Pentagon Papers were leaked and published. That's from a liberal, progressive, want to hold our government accountable, standpoint. Has nothing to do with him and me both being gay and it shouldn't.

Manning shouldn't get support just because he's gay. He should be getting support because it's the right thing for us to do - like the Occupy movement.

[KoKo]

5. Manning's Gayness has become an issue if you read the articles...He's a caring person

and the GLBT Community isn't supporting him..

I don't see how you can separate that he might be getting unfair treatment because of his sexual preference...the way the media and our President has treated him, though.

It just seems that he isn't getting the compassionate support for his cause and circumstances of what he did from anyone but the LEFT Dems. And most are "under the bus."

Remember our President declared him Guilty. And, I don't remember a President in my lifetime declaring someone guilty before trial. And, that Manning has been held under tortuous circumstances (documented) without press even bothering with his case except for some on the Civil Liberties Left and Firedoglake's reporter who has done an admirable job.

Kevin Gosztola | The Dissenter
dissenter.firedoglake.com/author/kgosztola/

It's quiet about Manning. He has been abandoned. WHY?

[REP]

16. "Sexual preference"? That's an odd choice of words for an GLBT supporter

I had no idea preference had anything to do with it. I thought that was a right wing meme.

[defacto7]

84. Logically

The word "preference" does not necessarily mean you are deciding anything. It only means you like something more than something else.

[dballance]

144. You are technically correct. However, "sexual preference" is an oft used RW meme

The RW people like Bryan Fisher, Pat Robertson, Michele Bachmann and many others on the right use it to discredit LGBT people. They maintain that we all just choose to be LGBT that we're not born this way. So using "preference" rather than "orientation" in that context is an affront.

[defacto7]

146. OK, I respect that...

But it is too bad that we allow them to claim the English language as well, and we have to shy away from its proper usage.

Damn I hate those creeps who are so ignorant of the language that they twist it into a definition it doesn't have and even teach their sheep the communication skills of the "born again" as a tool. If the word preference is that far gone I guess I'll just have to bid it goodbye. But then... hey... we got the word "gay". They can't take that back!

[ronnie624]

152. For years, I've bristled at the use of the word 'preference'.

It's use seems to me, to imply a belief that one can choose their sexual orientation, and therefore change it, which is clearly absurd.

[KoKo]

226. I should have said "Sexual Category" in the GLBT spectrum. Sorry about that.

I in no way meant that this was something "chosen." Okay?

[dballance]

30. Gotta love that "...He's a caring person"

What exactly does that mean in this context? Are you implying that's one of the overwhelming attributes of gay men? You know, we're all so nurturing and caring - so unlike the macho male stereotype with their veneer of uncaring indifference. By the way, the term "sexual preference" went the way of the Dodo along with that attitude that we're all such "caring" people because we're gay. His "gayness?" Seriously, you want to go with that? You're revealing yourself as something of a bigot with antiquated attitudes.

I can easily separate his sexual orientation from his actions which had nothing to do with his prosecution because while I am gay it doesn't drive my every action in life nor does it drive most LGBT peoples' every action in life.

The articles I've read have mentioned his sexual orientation in a very peripheral manner, not as something that is central to his case. As for him getting little support I guess you missed the debacle with the SF Pride Parade and how people rallied for Manning against the Pride Board when they de-selected him as grand marshal.

Somehow I doubt Obama is the only president to declare someone guilty before trial or at least strongly imply it. I'd be willing to bet I can find quotes from W. Bush that do the same. But your mention of that and his treatment being held as he has are completely irrelevant to his being gay. The UN has come out and said it's inhuman treatment as it would for any person held similarly and as they've said about GitMo. I believe his treatment is as far as the government feels it can go with a US citizen and solider toward torture to break him and get him to plea to charges. I believe they'd do that with any person regardless of sexual orientation. Look at how they treated Aaron Swartz. While they didn't put him in solitary they certainly used every tool at their disposal to ruin his life and try to get him to plea.

Yes, it's sad the press has paid so little attention to Manning and then got their knickers in a wad after the AP phone records and FOX reporter records issues. Apparently the people's right to know and a free press stops with corporate media and Wikileaks isn't considered press by them. If Manning had leaked the documents to the AP rather than Wikileaks I suspect things would be far different. Since he didn't (maybe he tried and got rebuffed by corporate media) and it was Wikileaks that got the documents I wouldn't be surprised that our US press bears more than a little grudge against Manning since none of them got the scoop. So their ignoring his case doesn't really surprise me.

I will not support someone just because they're gay. I must believe that what they're fighting for is just, fair and right. That's the same standard I use for people of all genders, races and sexual orientations. There are a lot of Log Cabin Republicans who I'll never support as long as they support the GOP. They're gay but they don't get my support by default.

As I said in my earlier post I support Manning for leaking the records the same way I would have supported the Pentagon Papers being leaked. I support him as a lefty who wants our government held accountable for what they do our name. I have been critical here on DU about Obama's use of drones and spying and pointed out that if we're not just as critical of Obama for doing the same things W. Bush did then we're hypocrites.

If other minority groups are supporting "their own" just because a person is part of their minority and not because what that person is fighting for is right and just then that's too bad. I think that waters-down their credibility when it comes to really fighting for what is right and fair.

[DevonRex]

85. I was in MI with gays and lesbians before DADT even. Talk about great

soldiers. They loved being soldiers. They loved their country, even at a time when their country treated them horribly - officially and in practice. They did everything they possibly could, and more than the rest of us, to serve this country, at great danger to themselves.

There isn't one of them that would applaud Manning for what he did. He violated his oath. He put others in the Intel community in danger, as if they aren't at enough risk already. You don't do that to your fellow soldiers. Ever. You don't betray your oath. You don't betray your country. This is a treason story. It is not an LGBT story.

People like Manning just like to seem important. So they talk too much. When they screw up or don't get promotions, they lash out. It doesn't matter to them where the recognition comes from, whether it's from a job well done or selling their country out. Just like that traitor Robert Hanssen.

[CreekDog]

147. are you stereotyping the GLBT community by suggesting they all need to think alike?

[KoKo]

227. I think people who have been through challenges and hardships have a commonality

that gives them a sensitivity to sufferings. That's what I think.

[SouthCarolina]

99. Correct

No special treatment for Bradley, even though he's the politically correct flavour of the month. The crimes per se are not GLBT. But how she got some of the information . . . maybe that's a story there.

[JI7]

4. are you saying organizations that fight for gay rights should use their resources

for Manning ?

[KoKo]

8. WHY NOT? That's what I'm asking.

[JI7]

18. because the case has nothing to do with him being gay

[hrmjustin]

78. While I always believe we can do more than one thing at a time, LGBT organizations really

are busy with the marriage issue. In the end if we are loud or quiet on this issue he was always going to go to jail and there really is nothing we can do about it. I wish he wasn't going to stay in prison but he is.

[randome]

6. Simply because someone is gay does not entitle them to unfettered support, does it?

I'm sure the gay community, like any other, has different opinions on his giving national security info to Wikileaks.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[KoKo]

7. Disagree...I see posts here all the time on DU where Feminists Groups defend their own

Latino's, African Americans, Native Americans and Others (who have a community) come together to defend their own if they think the cause is PRINCIPLED.

Are you saying that Manning's cause was UNPRINCIPLED?

[randome]

12. I think some think he did the wrong thing, same as on DU.

I don't intend to open that can of worms here but I would think any larger community would encompass both sides of the issue.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[REP]

17. Is one born a feminist?

Your arguments are ... interesting. Lets leave it at that.

[JI7]

25. no, none of those are defended just for being from the same group

[stevenleser]

37. And you will also note some vehement disagreements on certain feminist topics.

Feminists do not agree on everything or even all feminist topics.

African Americans do not agree on everything or even all topics pertaining to people of color.

etc.

[Pelican]

40. Defending someone right or wrong...

... because they have X characteristic is intellectual laziness.

Manning is/was a terrible 10% Soldier who lashed out at the organization that he had failed so miserably at. He also happens to be gay.

So what?

[customerserviceguy]

96. Bingo

Maybe the GLBT folks figure they should spend their political capital on someone that so many people don't view as some sort of traitor.

[liberal_at_heart]

50. not me. I judge based on individual circumstances.

Would all of us women of DU vote for Michelle Bauchman if she won the republican nomination and ran for president? Hell no. I'm not even 100% sure I'll vote for Hillary if she runs. There are things I like and don't like about Hillary. I don't know much about the Bradley Manning case but I agree with what others are saying that just because somone is gay does not automatically mean they garner support.

[hrmjustin]

80. Not all gay people agree on every issue.

LGBT orgs don't all agree on every issue.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

161. The idea that being gay creates an obligation to support other gay people who do bad things is daft.

There's no connection between the two.

Being gay doesn't mean one has to support a man who betrayed US state secrets he swore to protect, *and whose contents he did not know*.

You might just as well ask "why doesn't the gay community support <insert any other criminal who happened to be gay here>?" - being gay has nothing to do with it.

[Luminous Animal]

9. Plenty of supporters in San Francisco and around the world. Many Manning contigents in Pride parades

last year with a good turn out. I expect a huge turn out for this year's San Francisco Pride parade. Manning, a gay man is considered a hero by every LGBTQ activist that I know, and I know a lot.

[Marrah_G]

10. err...what?

[backscatter712]

11. Which part of the GLBT community? n/t

[KoKo]

13. "Gay Pride" ...they Dumped him...

Bradley Manning is Grand Marshal! Pride Meeting 7 May 2013
YouTube posted May 9, 2013 by MayaMediated

YouTube info: Includes the only photos from inside the meeting! "They say court martial! We say grand marshal!" Why did Pride cancel making Bradley Manning Grand Marshal of Pride 2013? Why did they ban the press from their meeting? Sure looks like the corporate sponsors want a nice, squeaky clean party with no reminders that Pride is about fighting for human rights and that the celebration honors a RIOT. Forget the Pride committee. The community has spoken: Bradley Manning IS Grand Marshal.

* * *

Kevin Gosztola did a great recap of this botched meeting (How San Francisco Pride Is Perpetuating a Scandal by Not Reinstating Bradley Manning as Grand Marshal). I started following links and ended up at this youtube, wanted to share, did the screenshot-transcript thing below, but really it's better just to watch. Hats off, with a special bow to Daniel Ellsberg. So good to see him here standing up for fellow whistleblower and American hero Bradley Manning.

http://www.correntewire.com/bradley_manning_is_grand_marshal_scenes_from_the_pride_board_meeting_san_francisco_may_7_2013

[Bluenorthwest]

27. Gee who gave you the right to declare that SF Pride = 'the gay community'?

First off, even the article you post here is about the support for Manning in the community being overridden by SF Pride, which is a large local organization with lots of corporate sponsorship which organizes an event. They are not even State wide.
In addition anyone who has so much as watched 'Milk' would be aware of the fact that SF's wealthy gay power elite has long presented a relatively conservative manner to the world, they were not early supporters of Harvey's and instead supported the straight 'machine' candidate.
It's just crazed to point to a staid, ongoing corporate supported organization in one city in the midst of a disagreement about Manning with and declare the that organization speaks for the entire national gay community when they very clearly don't even speak for the whole of their local SF community.

[Luminous Animal]

76. Excellet post and for the record, in San Francisco, the LGBTQ community has

stepped up to support Brad. I know because I am there at the protests against their decision and I will be there marching with my brothers and sisters at the largest Manning contingent ever at Pride (and we've had one for the last 2 years).

[LadyHawkAZ]

102. Pride organizers don't represent everyone even in their own community,

never mind nationwide. Salt Lake Pride backed out of having Joe Jervis (of Joe.My.God blog) as GM this year because one person on the committee -ONE person- was concerned about the well-deserved swipes he's taken at the LDS Church. There was one objection, and the rest backed down. There's quite a few in my circle who are not happy with this decision, who really wanted Jervis to get the invite. I can't speak for how San Francisco operates, but it looks like much the same thing happened, only with a few more objecting.

Pride is about all of us, but the Pride committee decisions don't always reflect the views of all of us. Make sense?

I support Manning, btw.

[pnwmom]

14. Because he was a soldier who had sworn to protect the security of the US

but handed over top-secret government documents to Wikileaks? (Including papers that put the lives of American allies at risk.)

And then bragged about it to a friend?

After fighting so long for the rights of LGBT to serve, maybe the gay community isn't interested in making him their standard bearer.

[KoKo]

20. He was a young kid given a security clearance and saw "things" he couldn't tolerate

because it went against his sense of human behavior in what he signed up to do.

He saw what he felt was incredible over-reach and cruelty he couldn't imagine. It went against what he thought he signed up to do.

What would YOU DO in his situation...or if your son or daughter was in the same situation?

Also he had gender issues which might be why he's being gone after, also.

[pnwmom]

23. He apparently released whatever he could get his hands on,

including thousands of cables with names of allies, putting innocent people's lives at risk. No, I wouldn't have done what he did and I hope my children wouldn't either.

I don't think his gender issues are why he was prosecuted. He was a soldier who clearly broke the law. I have no issue with his being prosecuted; but I do with how he was treated subsequently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning

Diplomatic cables, Guantanamo Bay files [edit]

Further information: United States diplomatic cables leak and Guantanamo Bay files leak

Manning told Lamo he was also responsible for the "Cablegate" leak of 251,287 State Department cables, written by 271 American embassies and consulates in 180 countries, dated December 1966 to February 2010. The cables were passed by Assange to his three media partners, plus El País and others, and published in stages from November 28, 2010, with the names of sources removed. WikiLeaks said it was the largest set of confidential documents ever released into the public domain.[40] The rest of the cables were published unredacted by WikiLeaks on September 1, 2011, after David Leigh and Luke Harding of The Guardian inadvertently published the passphrase for a file that was still online; Nicks writes that one Ethiopian journalist had to leave his country and the U.S. government said it had to relocate several sources. Manning is also thought to have been the source of the Guantanamo Bay files leak, originally obtained by WikiLeaks in 2010, and published by The New York Times over a year later on April 24, 201

[KoKo]

26. pnwmom, Did you see Post #13..the video and link?

[KoKo]

205. The link and video are now up in the OP...have you had a chance to view?

[jeff47]

81. He couldn't tolerate Castro's favorite ice cream?

Manning released a massive volume of information. There was no possible way he went through every single bit of information to make sure it was "intolerable". And there's a ton of mundane bits of information that he released.

The most inflammatory information he leaked, the "collateral murder" video, matched the already public investigation of the incident. It would be extremely odd for that to be "intolerable" when it corroborated the official report.

In addition, he made no mention of "intolerable" things when he leaked the information. The "intolerable" claims started after he was arrested.

So what, specifically, were the "intolerable" things he saw?

[Smarmie Doofus]

155. If this were true, why was the Collateral Murder video classified?

>>>The most inflammatory information he leaked, the "collateral murder" video, matched the already public investigation of the incident. It would be extremely odd for that to be "intolerable" when it corroborated the official report. >>>>

Odder still that it was classified, seems to me.

[Recursion]

156. Overclassification is a big problem

But the solution is not for a PFC to release gigabytes of unvetted material on his own authority.

[Smarmie Doofus]

160. What IS the solution? n/t

[Recursion]

165. It's slow, gradual, and frustrating, and it's been going on with setbacks and advances for 2 decades

It's a long-term, long-running bureaucratic fight to change the mindset of the classification apparatus. It will take a long time, though.

[Smarmie Doofus]

173. So this is just a systemic glitch. Bureaucratic logjam. The Collateral Murder ( so called) video...

...wasn't classified in order to hide it from public view ( And I never understood this part: others in this thread say it *substantiates* the official version: all the dead folks were bad guys and deserved to die) but rather the agenda-less clicking of the "classification apparatus."

I've been chewing that over since this hit the news.... three years ago?..... and I find it hard to swallow.

[Recursion]

179. What about it do you think contradicted the public reports?

Helicopter shoots group of armed men out after curfew. No real need to classify it, but stuff like that always gets classified. Hell, the crossbow was classified until the 1990s.

[Smarmie Doofus]

194. Interesting. You say " group of armed men." Whatever else is on that video....

... I don't see a " group of armed men." And neither does anyone else.

"Out after curfew": also interesting. When was "curfew"? Mid-morning? That's a little strange. No?

And these guys were in a fire fight w. US troops "all morning" as it says somewhere. Hey... they're a pretty non-chalant looking group for guys who are intermittently fire-fighting w. the most lethal of all military machines in recorded human history.

Lastly... if there was no need to classify it, why did US ( presumably DOD) resist the FOIL from Reuters?


I dunnnoo.... somethin's not entirely right about this thing.......

And I don't see how we can rightfully blame Manning for that.

[Recursion]

216. Both the pilot and Assange's narration mention the clearly visible rifles

Manning's fans claiming that the video doesn't show what it clearly shows is frankly Orwellian to me.

The DoD challenged the FOIA request because it wrongheadedly challenges all FOIA requests.

[AnalystInParadise]

193. Exactly that

a log jam. We classify a DVD if it goes into the D Drive of a classified laptop, even if not a single ounce of data has been burned to the DVD............We classify the Hard metal cases that protect the laptop components, the piece of aluminum that protects the RAM, Hard Drive, Motherboard, etc can become classified. All one needs to do is slap a Blue, Red, Yellow or Orange sticker on it........(MI people will know what i mean by the stickers) Overclassifying is out of control. That video was of combat footage, most official combat footage is classified to one point or another.

[Recursion]

217. And yet my handwritten notes of interviews were unclassified...

... until I typed up the exact same words on a secure laptop. That always irritated me.

[SlimJimmy]

178. He released thousands upon thousands of classified documents without reading them. How

could he possibly be incensed over something he hadn't seen? The fact that he is gay had absolutely nothing to do with that.

He saw what he felt was incredible over-reach and cruelty he couldn't imagine. It went against what he thought he signed up to do.

[sabrina 1]

38. Yes he took his oath seriously and refused to keep secret violations by his superiors of that same

oath. Are you saying that when someone in the military witnesses war crimes they are supposed to remain silent, to cover for the war criminals?

Did you feel this way about the courageous soldier who exposed the war crimes at Abu Ghraib?

What would YOU do if you saw innocent people being imprisoned and tortured after you reported these crimes to your superiors and were ignored??

He is a hero for what he did. Maybe you should read his own words rather than depending on the Corporate Media to form opinions about who is and who is not a hero. After all they presented Bush, Cheney and their gang of war criminals as heroes.

[Pelican]

42. Which war crime was that?

Unless you are going the lazy route of saying that anything related to OIF was a war crime. Along with any diplomatic relations that the US happened be conducting at the time...

[sabrina 1]

48. Just as I thought. You know nothing at all about Manning's case.

It's always best to inform yourself about issues you choose to comment on with authority if you expect to have credibility.

[Pelican]

54. I was just curious...

... if you were referring to the sensationally named "Collateral Murder" or were just going with "the whole war is illegal so the rules don't count."

[sabrina 1]

64. Do you know why Manning did what he did in the end?

[Pelican]

70. I've got a solid theory based on what's been presented to the public so far...

... but I'd love to hear yours.

[ucrdem]

91. My understanding is that he loathed Hillary Clinton:

Manning told Lamo he had given classified files to a “white haired aussie” (Julian Assange), and referred to the leak of a classified diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks. He even bragged a little: “[Secretary of State]Hillary Clinton and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning, and finds an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format to the public… everywhere there’s a US post… there’s a diplomatic scandal that will be revealed.” http://www.crimemagazine.com/bradley-manning-patriot-or-traitor

I wouldn't be surprised if a little more digging turned up a deep and abiding respect for Ron Paul. The fact of the matter is that Assange (or somebody) used him and then hung him out to dry. Nothing particularly honorable in any of it that I can see.

[sabrina 1]

98. Is that what you think? Wow! Have you read those internet logs

or just the cherry picked one you just posted? I doubt it. I have and no, he was not too into politics. In fact he was pretty much disliked by the right wingers, being Gay didn't help with the right either, I mean before all of this.

His statement there was an acknowledgement of the trouble he knew he would be in and hardly personal to Cllinton. But you would have to have read all of the logs to understand that. Had it been Cheney or Ron Paul in her position, his statement would have been the same 'Ron Paul and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up etc etc. He had done something he knew would cause 'heart attacks' to those in power, regardless of party. SHE happened to be in power at the time although most of what he revealed was about the Bush war crimes so I don't see why any Democrat would be upset about that.

Odd that you interpreted that statement as 'hating' anyone. It was the equivalent of someone who had done something in the middle ages that they knew would give a 'heart attack' to the king.

You really should read more before trying to interpret things with so little information.

[ucrdem]

105. That's what Manning wrote in May 2010. Here's the source:

(12:52:33 PM) bradass87: Hilary Clinton, and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning, and finds an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format to the public… =L

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs/

It's been common knowledge since the logs were published two years ago.

[Smarmie Doofus]

164. Not even close. No offense, but seriously, read more about it. n/t

[KoKo]

221. Ron Paul seems to be an obsession with some posters here on DU and

"Libertarian" the second obsession. Manning is very young...and to try to put him in a box as some sort of Ideological Tool for Ron Paul or Libertarians is really OTT.

At his young age he was still exploring his identity...but he saw things that went against his humanitarian leanings and called them out. This is the kind of person we hope to have in our society to keep a balance.

That you would try to infer that he is some "clandestine supporter/tool" of Ron Paul and Libertarians is quite a reach...and it makes me think that there might be another agenda you have in trying to paint this kid that way. Or, you are very young and seeing things "under the bed" that you are fighting against yourself that you might be dealing with being on a political forum like this one.

Whatever...

[AnalystInParadise]

73. I am a retired Army Intelligence Analyst(retired a few years ago)

and I can discuss any finer points of the case that you would like to. I am very knowledgeable on Manning (having taught at the 35F School house while he was a student there, he was not my student though) and very knowledgeable on Military Intelligence and on issues of declassifying data and also the Iraq war in general as I have three tours there under my belt. Manning is a criminal, it is that easy, he compromised a lot of Intelligence and he will serve a lot of jail time for that. I have no hatred or dislike for the young man, but he was wrong and he made mistakes and he will pay for them. That being said, I am more than happy to talk about this issue as long as we agree to stick to facts, not how you wish the law was written.

[sabrina 1]

79. Many laws have been written in the history of this country. One of them, or so we are told, forbids

torture. Others are now no longer laws because they were bad laws.

Manning witnessed a war crime and reported it. Since we are talking about laws, why was his report, considered he was attempting to have our laws applied, ignored by his superiors?

If violating laws was taken seriously, then those who lied us into war would not be walking free, would they? THEY got thousands of our troops killed, tens of thousands of other innocent people.

If you want to talk about laws, then let's do that. I am willing to talk to anyone who believes that there is a rule of law in this country that applies to EVERYONE. And that the violation of some laws causes far more harm than the violation of others when the intent (intent used to be a consideration in our legal system) is to prevent harm.

Tell me, why are the laws of this country applied only to people like Manning, but not to his superior officers or to a CIC who led this country, and him, into a disastrous war based on lies?

[AnalystInParadise]

112. Because Manning broke the law

His direct superior officers did not break any laws in their duties. As for George Bush he was smart enough (actually his handlers were smart enough) to ensure he had a Congressional vote sending this nation to war. Whether it was a war based on truth or lies, he got it sanctified with a Congressional vote authorizing his actions. Immoral? Absolutely, Disgusting, yep, but not really illegal. He basically rigged the system to give him what he wanted and made sure they were as culpable as he was in the decision to make the war happen. Inconceivable immoral behavior that should have him burn in hell for eternity, but not illegal unfortunately.

[sabrina 1]

137. Handing over innocent people who were promised by the US that the horrific invasion they endured

would at least guarantee them the right to peacefully protest, was illegal once it was known that they were being tortured and abused and maybe even murdered.

The reason Bush got ANY support for that illegal war, and yes it WAS illegal because the 'sanctification' he got was BASED ON LIES so it was baseless and if we had the courage to prosecute our own war criminals, that 'sanctification' would have been declared null and void. Just because a crime is not prosecuted does NOT make it legal.

Manning took an oath and apparently, naively, believed that we were there to help the Iraqi people and to 'close Saddam's torture chambers' etc. etc. He acted on the lies he was told, yes, and he found out they were lies when he was told to shut up. No moral person can stand by and watch something so criminal, worse, he was asked to participate in the crime, and NOT try to do something about it. No MORAL person.

He became a whistle-blower when all else failed. We supposedly protect whistle blowers in this country.

I am having great difficulty with your argument which appears to be that if you can get away with a crime, it is legal. But if you report a crime and are ignored then realize that you are participating in a crime and try to do something about it realizing the 'laws' you once respected are a sham, you are worse than the criminals who have managed to get away with their horrific crimes and should be prosecuted.

You seem comfortable with acknowledging that Bush et al were criminals yet are trying to make the case that if you lie to Congress and succeed in not getting caught in those lies, there is some legitimacy to Congress' decision based on those lies. How could that be? No law based on lies ever has legitimacy. That's like saying that although something exists if you don't see it, it doesn't exist.

If a jury, eg, convicts someone based on false evidence, is that conviction legitmate? And as soon as it is revealed that their ruling was wrong because they were lied to, does that mean the conviction should hold because it was all done 'legitimately? Was the conviction ever right? Of course not, because the innocent person convicted was always innocent regardless of the conviction. The Iraq War was always illegal regardless of Congress's decision because it was based on pernicious lies. Deliberate lies.

Now, why, since we all now know without a doubt that Bush et al lied about the worst thing any elected official can lie about, are you not demanding that they be prosecuted? But are comfortable with Manning being prosecuted? Why the different standards? What THEY did was far, far worse to put it mildly, than what he did even if we agree about the legal aspect of it.

Manning did nothing wrong. In fact he did what moral people throughout history have done and have gone down in history as heroes, he tried to stop something that was very, very wrong. Too bad our elected officials didn't have his courage and he would never have been in Iraq.

Here's my opinion. Any law based on a foundation of lies is not a law, it is a sham and no one is expected to respect it, especially when they learn the truth.

Let me ask you something, do you think that people should follow orders they know to be wrong? Airc, that was clarified for us at Nuremberg when the 'I was just following orders' excuse was rejected. Your argument that because something is 'legal' means that a moral person should not oppose it no matter how wrong it is, was not accepted at Nuremberg either. And WE, the US, were the driving force behind establishing those rules back then. Which gave us so much moral authority.

NOW we appear to be contradicting our own claims that because what was done in Germany was legal, it did not excuse those who acted according to those laws. In fact, we made heroes of people who BROKE the law in Germany, and rightly so imo. Manning witnessed something he thought his country was opposed to. I thought so too, until relatively recently. Bush made torture legal. What should someone do then when faced with what they know is wrong? Be silent?

[KoKo]

219. "He became a whistle-blower when all else failed." (Thank's Sabrina)

He became a whistle-blower when all else failed. We supposedly protect whistle blowers in this country.

We no longer protect Whistle Blowers under this President is the sad thing. And, because we have a fearful or bought out Media is the time when we most NEED the Whistle Blowers but they are treated like scum.

[AnalystInParadise]

230. A whistle blower for what?

Whistleblowers expose crimes. Manning exposed no crimes. ...he is not a whistleblower just because you claim he is. He is a young man that threw his life away because he felt that he alone was the ultimate authority on what and what should not be classified. That is why he is going to jail. I don't get angry but it is ironic watching so many intelligent people give up all reason and logic when they defend a criminal like Bradley Manning

[CanSocDem]

243. He trusted...

...others to decide "...what and what should not be classified." He left the finer points of editing to the likes of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

The spirit of OWS, the Arab Spring and all forms of social unrest at that time were expressions of the public interest demanding to know why it was being ignored. If you wonder why people defend Manning, it is because we object to his being singled out as one of many millions of voices, asking, among other industries, why is the public interest 'being ignored'.

There are many 'reasonable and logical' people defending Manning because no other way has worked as well as Exposing the Truth. These people are as experienced in deciphering the true motives of the Military Industry as you are in presenting their specious, black and white definition of justice.

Someday soon you will re-assess your definition of "crime."


.

[KoKo]

257. He Did Indeed...and TRUTH will OUT...even though it takes longer than we would wish it to.

[AnalystInParadise]

283. And what exactly were the crimes he exposed?

I am betting you will say the Collateral Damage video, which only Manning supporters believe is a crime.

[DevonRex]

139. I was a 98G/97B (now a 35L).

Primary and secondary MOS. Yeah, he broke the law. Who knows how many people he endangered with his data dump. He's a traitor in my book.

[AnalystInParadise]

167. Retired 96B/35F

on this end, not an Embedded Intelligence Mentor Contractor with 25th ID in Hawaii. I am instantly distrustful of anyone not in the MI community that defends Manning. They display their ignorance of the regulations every time they defend him.

His court martial will be fairly brief I believe.

[Luminous Animal]

87. The persecution of dissidents in Iraq. He went to his CO to complain and was told to STFU.

He then found the video, subsequently titled "Collateral Damage"... a video that revealed the murder of Reuters photographers... a video that Reuters had requested from our government but the government said didn't exist. He also downloaded info about U.S. actions in Afghanistan which revealed far more civilian deaths than our government and military would admit and which Afghan peace activists have thanked him... in the name of advancing democracy... for doing http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022917236

As we was accessing the above, he also started reading the diplomatic cables and became disturbed over the duplicity of hiding that info from the U.S. public.

[Pelican]

90. I remember Collateral Murder...

That was the one where Assange said that he edited out the guys with RPGs so that folks would side with him.

As for the rest of it, Manning hadn't even read most of it so he had no idea what he was dumping.

If an employee at a financial firm finds something unethical or illegal and turns over documents related to that specific incident, then he may qualify for whistleblower protection.

Releasing the mass internal records and communications of that company doesn't qualify.

Same logic applies here.

[Luminous Animal]

114. Actually they posted the entire video prior to releasing the edited one.

You can look at the time stamps yourself if you are willing to educate yourself.

And yes, Manning did read the cables. He even stated so to Lamo (the ratfink who turned him in). He read them over a course of a year. I've read them over several times during the same time. And he found oodles of unethical conduct. So much so that what he revealed sparked a young man to set fire to himself to protest his government's corruption in Tunisia and has inspired peace activists in Afghanistan to thank him.




Visit the Afghan Peace Volunteers website here:
http://ourjourneytosmile.com/blog/

[Pelican]

122. Really...

"Assigned to an army unit based near Baghdad, Manning had access to databases used by the United States government to transmit classified information. He was arrested after Adrian Lamo, a computer hacker, told the FBI that Manning had confided during online chats that he had downloaded material from these databases and passed it to WikiLeaks. The material included videos of the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike and the 2009 Granai airstrike in Afghanistan; 250,000 United States diplomatic cables; and 500,000 army reports that came to be known as the Iraq War logs and Afghan War logs. It was the largest set of restricted documents ever leaked to the public. Much of it was published by WikiLeaks or its media partners between April and November 2010.[2]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning

Are you seriously claiming that Manning read through 750,000 cables and military reports?

As to the full video, Assange admitted that he edited the video, leaving out the weapons that insurgents were carrying, so that he could appeal to the emotion of others. He also admitted that he knew that 90% of the people watching would only see the short video and would not have time to watch and analyse the full 45 minute engagement.

[Luminous Animal]

133. Yes. I believe he did. I could do it. I am an extra-ordinary fast reader and

can retain information. I can read a 500+ page book with footnotes and endnotes in about 12 hours. Most of the cables are a half to a third page long and I can read them in about 18-45 seconds. Your post took 13 seconds to read.

[jeff47]

138. Yet this is not a skill that Manning ever claimed to have had.

More to the point, he explicitly told the person he was leaking the information to that he had not read all of them.

[Luminous Animal]

201. He never said he hadn't read them all. Here is the entire quote from the Lamo chat logs:

1:47:36 PM) Manning: im sorry, there’s so many… its impossible for any one human to read all quarter-million… and not feel overwhelmed… and possibly desensitized

http://firedoglake.com/merged-manning-lamo-chat-logs/

[sabrina 1]

229. Wrong again, he most certainly did claim and very believably, to have read through most of them.

You really should stop commenting on this case until you inform yourself.

[AnalystInParadise]

235. Math is your friend

Let's say 60 seconds per report to completely read it and absorb the data. That is being VERY generous to you by the way as many reports are several pages long and thousands of words but I will be generous AGAIN to prove that you are incredibly full of shit.

So Manning can read 60reports an hour if he never ate, he never slept, he never went to the bathroom, we both know the average human needs 4-6 hours to function. Let's split the difference and say 5 hours of sleep, plus two more hours for meals, walking around the base, personal hygiene, etc. In Iraq Analysts work twelve hours on twelve hours off. So let's say that Manning was free to read reports for 6 of his twelve hours off. We also know that he instant messaged people, we know he made phone calls, watched movies and played video games. So can we agree that of the 6 remaining hours on his off time, that for one of those hours he emailed, skyped and played video games? I am willing to say that he read reports for 5 of his twelve hours off. Now for the twelve hours he was on shift, he actually had work to do and products to produce, but he also would have had down time. I am willing to generously say that no one was concerned about an analyst doing work on IED's spending half his shift on a state department website for diplomatic cables. I AM WILLING to say that Manning had 11 hours a day everyday to read these 750,000 messages he claimed to read. So let's do some math Manning was in Iraq from late October until May 26th the day he was arrested. This means he had about 200 days to read reports, except we also know he went on leave so take 24 days off that total. So let's say he had 186 days in country to read reports. If you want to say that he took data with him on military leave, I am willing to add some numbers onto this math problem we are about to engage in. So 186 days times 11 hours a day means manning had 2046 hours to read reports. I will give you the round up and say he had 2100 hours to read reports. So if we say he read one report a minute NONSTOP for that 2100 hours then he read 126,000 reports. That's not even 20% of the total AND NOWHERE NEAR MOST OF THEM. BUT we both know he did not read reports non-stop during these hours I have mentioned. He had extra duty that took him away from his work, he had mandatory PT physical training during the work day that was usually an hour per day, so we can subtract 200 hours just from PT alone. Ask anyone who has been to Iraq most people do their PT training during the workday or during the off time, either way Manning loses an hour each day from this alone. PT is not voluntary unless you score over 300 on your PT test. And Manning did not, please prove otherwise if you can. So let's knock that down to 1900 hours, also he saw a mental health expert and another doctor on FOB HAMMER where he was stationed at least once a week, chop another hour per week from the 30 weeks he was there. We are now down to about 1850 hours and this is ASSUMING Manning was left alone to read diplomatic cables in full view of all his coworkers for 6 hours a day while on shift. Anyone who has worked in a SCIF in Iraq knows that you work in an office with 5-10 other people at the same time, or you work on the Ops Floor which has 30-50 people. No way did he read that many hours a day. BUT I am going to be generous and give you the allotted time we have just discussed. So subtracting PT hours and Doctors appointments/Getting counselled by the Commander, extra duty from his Article 15, etc.....I think we can agree that Bradley Manning had 1800 hours (9 hours a day) while in theater to read the messages (Still way too much time, but I will use numbers in your favor to demonstrate how ridiculous you are. So 200 days in theater times 9 hours a day time 60 reports per hour gives us 108,000 reports totally read if we use your crazy logic. In what universe is 14.4% most of anything. If you want to claim that he read the remaining 500,000 reports while he was on his midtour leave please do so....Also I am awaiting your claim that he was a great analyst and didn't have to read them....if you go that route, please read this. Manning was a red flag from day one, his fellow students knew he was a security risk waiting to happen.............So please tell me again how Manning was an excellent analyst, I await that post. Let's say 60 seconds per report to completely read it and absorb the data. That is being VERY generous to you by the way as many reports are several pages long and thousands of words but I will be generous AGAIN to prove that you are incredibly full of shit.

So Manning can read 60reports an hour if he never ate, he never slept, he never went to the bathroom, we both know the average human needs 4-6 hours to function. Let's split the difference and say 5 hours of sleep, plus two more hours for meals, walking around the base, personal hygiene, etc. In Iraq Analysts work twelve hours on twelve hours off. So let's say that Manning was free to read reports for 6 of his twelve hours off. We also know that he instant messaged people, we know he made phone calls, watched movies and played video games. So can we agree that of the 6 remaining hours on his off time, that for one of those hours he emailed, skyped and played video games? I am willing to say that he read reports for 5 of his twelve hours off. Now for the twelve hours he was on shift, he actually had work to do and products to produce, but he also would have had down time. I am willing to generously say that no one was concerned about an analyst doing work on IED's spending half his shift on a state department website for diplomatic cables. I AM WILLING to say that Manning had 11 hours a day everyday to read these 750,000 messages he claimed to read. So let's do some math Manning was in Iraq from late October until May 26th the day he was arrested. This means he had about 200 days to read reports, except we also know he went on leave so take 24 days off that total. So let's say he had 186 days in country to read reports. If you want to say that he took data with him on military leave, I am willing to add some numbers onto this math problem we are about to engage in. So 186 days times 11 hours a day means manning had 2046 hours to read reports. I will give you the round up and say he had 2100 hours to read reports. So if we say he read one report a minute NONSTOP for that 2100 hours then he read 126,000 reports. That's not even 20% of the total AND NOWHERE NEAR MOST OF THEM. BUT we both know he did not read reports non-stop during these hours I have mentioned. He had extra duty that took him away from his work, he had mandatory PT physical training during the work day that was usually an hour per day, so we can subtract 200 hours just from PT alone. Ask anyone who has been to Iraq most people do their PT training during the workday or during the off time, either way Manning loses an hour each day from this alone. PT is not voluntary unless you score over 300 on your PT test. And Manning did not, please prove otherwise if you can. So let's knock that down to 1900 hours, also he saw a mental health expert and another doctor on FOB HAMMER where he was stationed at least once a week, chop another hour per week from the 30 weeks he was there. We are now down to about 1850 hours and this is ASSUMING Manning was left alone to read diplomatic cables in full view of all his coworkers for 6 hours a day while on shift. Anyone who has worked in a SCIF in Iraq knows that you work in an office with 5-10 other people at the same time, or you work on the Ops Floor which has 30-50 people. No way did he read that many hours a day. BUT I am going to be generous and give you the allotted time we have just discussed. So subtracting PT hours and Doctors appointments/Getting counselled by the Commander, extra duty from his Article 15, etc.....I think we can agree that Bradley Manning had 1800 hours (9 hours a day) while in theater to read the messages (Still way too much time, but I will use numbers in your favor to demonstrate how ridiculous you are. So 200 days in theater times 9 hours a day time 60 reports per hour gives us 108,000 reports totally read if we use your crazy logic. In what universe is 14.4% most of anything. If you want to claim that he read the remaining 500,000 reports while he was on his midtour leave please do so....Also I am awaiting your claim that he was a great analyst and didn't have to read them....if you go that route, please read this. Manning was a red flag from day one, his fellow students knew he was a security risk waiting to happen.............So please tell me again how Manning was an excellent analyst, I await that post. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/manning_youtube/

[AnalystInParadise]

253. Huh....I guess

math is not your friend.

[Pelican]

142. Note your use of the word "believe"

How about some proof...? At least a claim from Manning that he read 750,000 documents, analyzed them and released the ones that he believed showed some sort of wrong doing. He would still be criminally liable but potentially defensible from a moral standpoint.

As someone who writes and reads them daily, I can assure you that the average military report is much longer than 1/3 of a page.

Lastly, as a personal note, did you really time yourself as you read my post?

[SlimJimmy]

252. Using that logic, it would take you about two and a half years to read all the material he released.

Not physically possible.

[Smarmie Doofus]

162. A link to this admission would be most helpful:

>>>As to the full video, Assange admitted that he edited the video, leaving out the weapons that insurgents were carrying, so that he could appeal to the emotion of others. He also admitted that he knew that 90% of the people watching would only see the short video and would not have time to watch and analyse the full 45 minute engagement.>>

[AnalystInParadise]

238. He said it on the Colbert Report

If I can't find it will someone else post it? But he did say they Wikileaks edits videos to gain sympathy as well as maximum political effect. He said more but that was the phrase that stuck with me. In essence Assange admitted he makes propaganda.

[AnalystInParadise]

123. Unethical and illegal are not the same thing

And Manning read all 250,000 cables? Given the slow loading speed of the SIPRNET, the limited bandwidth at FOB Hammer where Manning was located, and the given hours in a day where he actually had to do real Intelligence work, if anything he read only a handful of those cables. And even then, unethical is not illegal. As for the video, I have watched it numerous times, I am stunned by the slow speed it took the pilots to get confirmation to fire.

[AnalystInParadise]

92. Collateral Damage

the video is not a war crime, I was in Baghdad that day, our rules of engagement were clear. Nothing in that video is amiss from any other day to day operation in Baghdad during the surge. Abu Ghraib....war crime....keeping Gitmo open war crime.....I am well aware of the war crimes that ACTUALLY were committed this was not one. You can say it is from now until the end of time, no one in the military will be prosecuted for their actions that day because it is not a crime to follow the rules of engagement and kill bad guys.

[AnalystInParadise]

97. I assume you mean this video

I watched it many times looking for any single crime.......there isn't any. As for Manning he was told to STFU because it was not a crime, he was not in DOMEX operations or Targeting so he had no idea what is or is not legal Targeting, and he was already under suspicion for his behavior with his female supervisor when he hit her. Manning is a criminal and he will pay. Not because the military has a grudge against him, because he committed crimes. Several crimes actually, and this video is proof that he was wrong.

[AnalystInParadise]

109. Anyone who knows anything about the military and our rules of engagement in Iraq

can see there no crime here. In fact there was almost too much restraint shown on the part of the Command group on the radio net. First weapons are spotted, if weapons were spotted in that part of Baghdad and a group of armed men was present, it was a free fire zone. This was due to the Sadr groups fighting battles across Baghdad that day with U.S. and Iraqi forces. The group was engaged ONLY after it was made clear that they were armed. At least three were armed, two with AK-47's and one with possibly an RPG, I couldn't quite make it out from the weapon profile. AFTER they are confirmed as being armed in a free fire zone, they are engaged. The one that is wounded and is not reaching for a weapon is not killed, he was definitely unarmed at that point. They actually talk about how they can target him if he grabs a weapon. Again not illegal. Next the van rolls up to an armed group that has just been engaged by the Apaches. AGAIN, the Apache pilot describes the situation and asks for permission to fire. The van is removing wounded insurgents from the battlefield, the van is not an ambulance, it is not displaying a Red Crescent symbol. It is a van with men in it removing insurgents and their weapons for treatment. This was a free fire zone, if you were engaged in combat or supporting combat operations against U.S. or Iraqi forces you were a legitimate legal target. There were unfortunately kids in the van, the men driving the van brought their kids into a free fire zone to evacuate wounded insurgents. However no one knew there were kids in the van until after the incident. Again not illegal to shoot the van because the kids could not be identified as being in the van prior to the van being engaged by the Apache. Anyway, again the Apache team asks for permission as the wounded formerly armed men are being placed inside for evac from the battlefield. Finally they receive permission and engage the van. The only thing that is close to a war crime is the soldier driving the Humvee that rolls over the dead body. Everything else is VERY legal and I have never understood the drama this video caused. Abu Ghraib was a war crime because it was obviously law breaking actions taking place. This video shows incredible restraint and following of the rules of engagement almost in excess. The commander was almost too cautious.... I don't understand how anyone can label this a war crime.

[jeff47]

111. They do so by forgetting that war crimes happen in wars.

I don't understand how anyone can label this a war crime.

Usually they do so by treating the situation as if it happened in a peaceful area instead of during a war.

At least three were armed, two with AK-47's and one with possibly an RPG, I couldn't quite make it out from the weapon profile.

It turned out to be a shoulder-held video camera. But those have been mistaken for anti-tank weapons for decades. For example, I happen to know of an incident in Panama where a cameraman was killed because he popped out of cover and pointed his camera at a tank column.

Miniaturization of "professional-grade" cameras over the last decade is going to save a lot of lives.

[AnalystInParadise]

118. Ok I am an open minded person

So one had a camera and not an RPG, that means 2 still had AK-47's in a free fire zone in Baghdad. A free fire zone in case anyone is not aware means that we can kill anyone armed in that zone that we believe to be a member of the threat group. Since this was near Rustimayah which was an insurgent hotbed and since these men were armed and meeting in a group, they became a legal target. There is no there, there.....this is only a crime to people who don't understand rules of engagement or people who would clutch at straws to see a criminal set free.

Here is how Bradley Manning's court martial will go: They will ask him if he leaked the evidence that he is accused of leaking. If he says yes then the court martial is over as they circumstances behind the information release are irrelevant to the military. It is a did you or didn't you do this? If yes then we move to sentencing. If he says no, then they will then use his own computer to prove he did in fact commit these crimes of which he has denied. And from there we move to sentencing. The only way Bradley Manning does not go to jail is if he has been framed and can prove it, or President Obama pardons him after sentencing. That is it.

[KoKo]

266. Curious about your DU Handle...

Why did you choose "AnalystInParadise" as your DU Handle... and What Does it Mean?

Does it mean you are: "Military Contractor in Paradise?"..."Person in Charge of Military Analysis in Paradise?" or "Thank Gawd Ahmighty"..."I've got a New Assignment?"

It's quite a catchy handle...and I was curious. It could be you are happy to be "Just Coasting in DU Paradise" with your "Expertise," also. Which is very cool for someone in your position and certainly something we would all hope to do at some point in our lives..

So...which is it...? If you would be kind enough to answer....

[AnalystInParadise]

267. Strange Question

But since you ask, I am a retired Army Intelligence Analyst that is now doing Analyst work as a Defense Contractor. I also happen to live in Hawaii (this is my third time to live in this amazing place in the last 20 years) and after my birth place is the place I consider home. Hawaii is truly a paradise and a few times a year I get to share space with my President, when he brings his amazing family here to visit. So the short answer is an AnalystinParadise

[jeff47]

100. You should watch the version Wikileaks added comments to

It helpfully points out the AK-47 in the group killed by the Apache. Which made the group a legal target.

The fact that they were a legal target is why going to war is a terrible idea.

[Smarmie Doofus]

232. Is this true? US told Reuters that the Collateral Murder video didn't exist?

>>>>>>>>>
He then found the video, subsequently titled "Collateral Damage"... a video that revealed the murder of Reuters photographers... a video that Reuters had requested from our government but the government said didn't exist.>>>>>

[AnalystInParadise]

236. LMAO the murder of Reuters photographers

Seriously dude, this is your angle? How about the foreseeable deaths of Reuters reporters travelling with armed men in a U.S. military free fire zone. If the video was classified for any reason and in this case it was classified, the only correct option for the military liasion to say was that the video did not exist. That's AGAIN not a crime, that is standard operating procedure for classified material.

[Smarmie Doofus]

239. Hmmm.... You're so bitter. Are you in pain?

Is what "my angle" ?

Is there something bothering you besides the question at issue?

[AnalystInParadise]

255. I am not bitter at all

I live in Hawaii, am a retired Sergeant First Class from the Army and have a cushy Defense Contractor job in Hawaii that is sequester proof. Also, I never broke my oaths, broke the law, and I most definitely won't be rotting in a federal prison for giving away classified material. So no, not bitter at all, embarrassed by people who defend a criminal? Yes. Saddened that so many logical, rational, intelligent people are willing to support a criminal that stained his honor and his country, Yep, guilt as charge. And finally, I am never angry about this, I just can never wrap my head around the pretzel logic it takes to defend Manning. In this thread alone, four current and former Military Intelligence professionals have weighed in on how and why Manning is a criminal according to the regulations concerning Intelligence declassification. No one has responded to the facts driven arguments. Instead people have shouted "war crimes" over and over again as if shouting it often and loud will manifest it into reality. So no, not bitter....disappointed in the illogical behavior of some over this easily resolvable topic.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

256. *

At Fri May 31, 2013, 05:48 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I am not bitter at all
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2928550

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

I'm not sure as a community we want "four Military Intelligence professionals" acting in concert ( check the sign-up dates: All on or around April 19th.) monitoring/participating in DU threads. It can reasonably be inferred that they are on assignment... perhaps paid... and are not legtimate members of this community. They are Manning Trolls.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri May 31, 2013, 06:03 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: Agree. Hide it!
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I think the alerter honestly needs more of a look from Admin than the posters they're accusing of wrongdoing without any proof beyond their own paranoia. Alert reeks of an effort to silence and run-off anybody who disagrees with alerter and an abuse of alert system.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I refuse to accept that I am required to keep a dossier on things like "Manning Trolls" in order to be an adequate Juror. Absent that, this poster sounds like a lot of military people I know regarding Manning. I may personally disagree, but there is nothing here worthy of deletion. Win the argument, not the argument over censoring an idea, and you're truly the better person.

Manning Trolls??? (facepalm)

[Smarmie Doofus]

258. Thanks for demonstrating the dynamic.

>>>I think the alerter honestly needs more of a look from Admin than the posters they're accusing of wrongdoing without any proof beyond their own paranoia. Alert reeks of an effort to silence and run-off anybody who disagrees with alerter and an abuse of alert system.>>>

I alert on Military Intelligence using and monitoring DU and *I*, the whistleblower, need to be "looked at" ( meaning "dealt with".) That's generally how it works, though, isn't it?
Ask Ellsberg, Manning, Thomas Tamm of DOJ, Mr. De Kort from DOD and NSA's Tom Drake. And a hundred other kindred souls struggling against this epidemic of governmental secrecy, corruption and abuse.

If you don't see what's wrong with an organized Military Intelligence team on or *near* DU, you're living on your own planet.

And for the record, I haven't alerted on a post since 2005. ( "Abuse of the alert system." Really?)

Let's see what the grown-ups say.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

259. I did not say that. That was not me. I don't alert, either. I did alert back in Jan, 2012 when

we first moved over to DU3. I think this is a wonky system and needs some tweaking.

Peace.

[Smarmie Doofus]

260. No, I realize that. I'm addressing the verbatim comments of Juror #3....

... the more coherent of the two "Leave it alone" votes who left us a "rationale"... if you can call it that... for allowing an organized Military Intelligence team ( shhheeeezzzz: so many corruptions of the language involved in this one thread) to take up residence on DU.

Should have made that clearer.

Peacebackatcha.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

261. yes, but, see that gets into a larger issue than what the jury duty system allows -

my understanding of it is that we are to only "judge" the one post on the merits of being civil. That was why I voted to leave and I know this may be lazy but, when I serve on a jury from my phone I don't leave a comment and I bet a lot of us are posting from phones these days ...

[Smarmie Doofus]

262. No worries. I'm gonna take it to the Admins.

If they're ok w. organized Military Intelligence units on DU... that's their call.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

263. I think that is an excellent idea.

[AnalystInParadise]

265. I am pretty sure the admins

are ok with people of all opinions on the liberal side of the spectrum posting on this forum as long as the remain mostly civil to each other. I am not going to shut up because you tried to silence me. You see friend that is what autocratic people do, they try to silence criticism of an idea they hold close to their heart. Obviously you believe Manning is innocent of crimes that he is being prosecuted for. You are entitled to your opinion and at no point have I tried to silence anyone for voicing their support of Manning. I am confused and astonished by this support given that most people supporting him have no idea how the regulations and rules concerning the release of classified data are written. All they know is that their pet issue ( hatred of the military, belief in no secrets, support of an LGBT soldier, whatever) is in the public eye and they will push their agenda. BUT, most people are willing to admit that not everyone holds their view and most people are ok with an opinion that is in dissent. YOU, on the other hand seem to be hell bent on shutting me up, I assume it is because I am giving a facts based counter argument to the emotions based argument that many Manning supporters here seem to favor. And your raison d'etre for alerting on me is that there is some "organized military intelligence unit" operating on DU, specifically this thread to alter opinion. Your reasoning is because there are four of us here that joined near each other. Well, here are some counter factual points that I am sure you will dismiss. I joined initially after a long time lurking to counter some of the uninformed opinions around the Boston bombing. If you notice most of my initial posts are about that. I joined because I wanted to add to this community, this place is a facts driven community and I appreciate that in a world full of so much emotional and unintelligent thought. DU stands as a place where I can USUALLY get facts based points on any topic under discussion. This place has it's fair share of cranks and crazies like any community, but I liked lurking around this place for years and enjoyed reading the usually cogent analysis on many topics. The Manning case has had NUMEROUS threads, between my join date and now. The only reason I personally even came to this thread was because I was irritated at once again watching people that knew nothing about the declassification of intelligence defending Bradley Manning. He is no hero and the bast majority of Intelligence Professionals look at him as a criminal worthy of our scorn. You know how I know the majority feels the same way I do? Because no one else has even attempted to leak data the way he did. Even now there are multiple ways to leak data from both the SIPR/Secret side and the JWICS/Top Secret side, and YET no one has done this. Also there seems to be no Facebook page, Twitter page or any other social media page from the Intelligence Community that is behind Bradley Manning. I would like to see such a group if it exists on social media.

So back to my main point, I will not shut up about this issue as long as the case drags on. Once the court martial happens and justice is served and Manning is in prison, I will most likely never post on this issue again. In the meantime, I will continue posting on whatever topics I like, hopefully you will come to your senses and realize that there is no conspiracy here, most military intel people have no respect for Manning because he did things the wrong way. My final note is what problem do you have with the 200,000 Americans who work in the Military Intelligence community in one fashion or another, the vast majority love this country and work hard to protect it, what is your real problem with us?

[KoKo]

268. Who Pays the Salaries of "the Military Intelligence People" of which you are a Proud Member?

Who pays you?

[AnalystInParadise]

269. The company I work for

which comes from portions of the Defense Budget, portions of the Homeland Security Budget and portions of the Budget of the State Department. I also receive my pension and my partial disability (bad knee) from the Department of Veterans Affairs. I am sincerely curious what you are on about?

And of course I am proud of my work, I do excellent work and feel like I am contributing to the greater good of the nation. Do you disagree?

[KoKo]

272. And WHO PAYS the Company YOU WORK FOR? THE TAXPAYERS!

I AM A TAXPAYER...Get over yourself. You seem to not understand that you are accountable TO ME...who helps Pay the Government who Give YOU your PAY CHECK.

Think about that.... Have you taken the time to realize that All of Us Out Here...Pay your Paycheck...not just the PooBah's in Government your work for...

's

[AnalystInParadise]

274. Umm Yeah

I also pay my own salary because I am also a taxpayer. Payment of taxes doesn't give you access to Classified material, only the security clearance to see that information gives a person that access. I don't need to get over anything, I know who pays my salary and I know who I work for. I have been a servant of the American people for 21 years now, that still doesn't make Bradley Manning any less of a criminal. I am accountable to the American people, not to you personally. But please keep this up, I am enjoying it.

[AnalystInParadise]

264. Holy hell what are you smoking

Organized military intelligence unit? Good grief, I don't know those other people from Adam but I can and do tend to trust people in the community that know what the hell they are talking about when it comes to regulations and the facts behind the Manning case. I don't even know how laughably insane it is, that you think an organized Military Intelligence Unit (your words, not mine) would go to a message board and try to do any kind of work. What freaking paranoid world do you live in? I am a retired 35F which means All Source Analyst, my job is about as far away from Message Board Warrior as one can get. If you want to talk about North Korean Order of Battle, Shia Islam or trends influencing SE Asia politics then I am your guy. Also if you want a FACTS based discussion on declassifying data and why Bradley Manning is a criminal, I am willing to have that discussion. But seriously dude, whatever you are smoking that leads to paranoia of this kind, please put it down. I am now a Defense Contractor that is a mentor for young Intelligence Soldiers that are new to the military. They used to have a term for that in the military, called a Master Analyst. However, the shrinking of the military led to the disbanding of the Master Analyst program in the late 1990's, so recently they brought it back using contractors and I am one of those people. You won't believe me and I mean DU no offense, but no team of Intelligence personnel is going to waste their time spreading anything around here, they have more important things to do. That is no slight on Democratic Underground, just a acknowledgement that there is nothing going on here that even warrants a second look by the government.

[KoKo]

270. Well..."Mr. Defense Contractor" Could you learn to post in Paragraph Breaks so your

posts are legible...or you just used to putting out reams of Info-Disinfomation...and no one has the time or skills to make sure your "output" is readable?

Do that Paragraph check before you rant off to DU Members...could yah? Or go to one of the Military Sites who would applaud your EXPERTICE and don't mind your Rants about your personal sophistication in your "FIELD." Whatever it is you seem to be such an expert on that the rest of us...are just not understanding enough or appreciative of...

's

[AnalystInParadise]

271. No thank you

I don't take orders from you.

Internet bullies, free speech silencers, and people who defend Bradley Manning are not in my chain of command.

[KoKo]

273. I thought not...perhaps you are not what you assume we will respect your posts for?

In other words... A Cloaked Rabbit in Iron Underwear...giving orders...expecting them to be obeyed...or just someone with high levels of fantasy?

[AnalystInParadise]

275. I was unaware

I needed or craved your respect. Did that incorrect idea come from the same place that assumes Bradley Manning is anything but a criminal and a traitor?

I am here to post factual arguments to counter factual, in this case wildly emotional arguments. Some posts will be on Manning, others will be on the Boston bombers, hell I may even post in the Lounge for no reason other than I can. But by all means please keep ignoring the facts about Bradley Manning and keep trying to silence anyone who disagrees with your opinion.

[KoKo]

276. You seem to know Less about Bradley Manning than you do about your own BRAVADO

Pulling Rank, bragging about being "Military Contractor" and your Pay Grade and long rants without paragraph breaks and rants that you think people will parse through to see the worth of your post and cred you as being what you say you are.

You expect much...but deliver little in any info about Bradley Manning that gives anyone any reason to believe what you say is more important than those who have "other views about Manning from credible sources outside the US Military who wants him dead or put away for Life."

So..until you give better evidence and it isn't all about how "important you are" because you are "MILITARY" (and how do we know this...unless you want to share your ID and other Info to us) and since you are MILITARY you know everything and the rest of the folks who are reading other information from verified reliable sources about Manning Defense and the Trial and you assume the rest of us should "bow down to YOU ...because you are a Military Defense Contractor?"

You gotta not know what this site is about...and that there are many very well-informed people here who aren't going to be "snow jobbed" by your supposed "creds, rants" and bragging about "who pays you" when you know very well that I and others here PAY YOU and we Pay the people who sign your Checks from whatever Department of Government or Military they come from. WE PAY YOU.!

But, carry on...

[AnalystInParadise]

278. I did not realize

identifying one's job and experience level was bragging. I missed that when I received my copy of Koko's DU rules handbook. My pay grade is a mystery as I have not revealed that, nor would I do something as distasteful as say what my current pay grade is. If you are referencing my retired military grade, there are hundreds of DUers that post that, in fact I seem to remember a thread where DUers were asked to post their final pay grade in the military, I think it was a Veterans Day thread.

You are wrong Kookoo, I expect nothing, I post what I have to say and people either believe or they don't. I expect no one to consider me an expert if they don't want to. I expect no one to like me if they don't, and I expect no one to take everything I say as sacrosanct. However, I do expect people to not try and silence me for having a dissenting opinion, but that seems to be a respect I will not receive even though it is one I have given.

People can either believe me or not believe me, the burden of proof is not on me to prove I am who I say I am, that is on you. Some people will recognize from things I post that I am in fact who I say I am. Others who have never been in MI will believe what they want. Some will believe me others will not. What I know for a fact is that anyone who supports Bradley Manning will never believe a word I say because I impugn their precious little darling. I don't waste my time trying to convince them because they have aligned themselves with a criminal and a traitor.

I have never asked anyone to bow down before me, nor will I ever. If you believe I have done this, please cite the posting in which I did this. Because to me it looks like you are posting sour grapes. I impugn your precious little criminal and you flip out. It is a pattern that is common here and why I said I was posting to rebut wildly emotional posts in support of Manning. This is a personal attack on me, you are being very clever and keeping it away from nasty words or other things that are verboten here on DU and I applaud your slyness. Your attempts to goad me into anger, hostility or any other negative emotion will fail. And do you know why? Because I know who I am, I know where I have been, I know the things I have seen in a lifetime of service to this country. And I know what I did for the last twenty years that was a small minute part of protecting this country. And ultimately I know that Bradley Manning will pay for his crimes because there is no other outcome, his court martial is now a formality.

Finally thank you for paying me, you allow me to live in Hawaii with a moderately comfortable existence, so again thank you. If you choose to believe me, great, if you choose to not believe me also great, but we both know if you believe me you likely see Manning as a criminal and if you don't believe me you see him as innocent. Personally I don't have a care in the world if Koko doesn't believe me on Democratic Underground, I neither want or need his/her approval because they support a criminal and a traitor and frankly I don't want someone like that in my corner. So please respond again, it is a cloudy day in Hawaii and I can't go to the beach, so I'll be here.

[KoKo]

279. I appreciate you've learned to do "paragraph breaks."

That you need to name call me"KooKoo" says more about other parts of your online and perhaps private persona than you might have wanted to reveal though.

Nothing else needs to be said after that revelation. A Military Intelligence Contractor...who brags your rank and name calls others on a website that has nothing to do with you ...and yet you trashed Bradley Manning for his Military Conduct?

Perhaps there was a step in your OWN training that you somehow missed. His conduct through his ordeal has been WAY ABOVE yours in your lovely retirement there in tropical paradise. Who is the better in military conduct? A braggart and name caller or a person who cared enough to report when his own Military was abusing its power when it's own Government was working in secret against what the people should know...because they pay all their salaries.

[AnalystInParadise]

281. Ok, so personal attacks continue

got it, you have nothing of value to say. As for your name, if you look I spelled it correctly at least twice....Sorry for my typo, not meant personally.

So please continue this personal attack against me.

[AnalystInParadise]

282. Bravo though for trying to attack me on a pride angle

Unfortunately, I am not prideful and do not have an over-inflated sense of my own importance. I think the term you are looking for to describe what you are doing is projection. I am a nobody in the intelligence world, one of thousands of professionals who are not famous, will not be famous and will never be mentioned in any sense of the media. Unlike Bradley Manning I followed the law, and will not spend my life rotting in prison for nothing. Had Manning exposed real war crimes, like Abu Ghraib, or some of the incidents down at Gitmo, I would be applauding him for his actions, but instead he is a criminal and a traitor who did nothing except incarcerate himself.....

[Pelican]

280. Is that a black helicopter I hear?

[Luminous Animal]

245. From Bradley Manning's statement at pretrial...

http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2013/03/01/bradley-manning-and-the-collateral-murder-video/

During the mid-February 2010 time frame the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division targeting analyst , then Specialist Jihrleah W. Showman and others discussed a video that Ms. Showman had found on the ‘T’ drive.

The video depicted several individuals being engaged by an aerial weapons team. At first I did not consider the video very special, as I have viewed countless other war porn type videos depicting combat. However, the recording of audio comments by the aerial weapons team crew and the second engagement in the video of an unarmed bongo truck troubled me.

As Showman and a few other analysts and officers in the T-SCIF commented on the video and debated whether the crew violated the rules of engagement or ROE in the second engagement, I shied away from this debate, instead conducting some research on the event. I wanted to learn what happened and whether there was any background to the events of the day that the event occurred, 12 July 2007.

Using Google I searched for the event by its date by its and general location. I found several news accounts involving two Reuters employees who were killed during the aerial weapon team engagement. Another story explained that Reuters had requested for a copy of the video under the Freedom of Information Act or FOIA. Reuters wanted to view the video in order to be able to understand what had happened and to improve their safety practices in combat zones. A spokesperson for Reuters was quoted saying that the video might help avoid the reoccurrence of the tragedy and believed there was a compelling need for the immediate release of the video.

Despite the submission of the FOIA request, the news account explained that CENTCOM replied to Reuters stating that they could not give a time frame for considering a FOIA request and that the video might no longer exist. Another story I found written a year later said that even though Reuters was still pursuing their request, they still did not receive a formal response or written determination in accordance with FOIA.

In the above, Manning references two news articles; 1) in which CENTCOM states that the video might no longer exist and 2) in which Reuters, a year after it's reporters were killed, reports that the news agency still hadn't received a response from CENTCOM regarding their FOIA request. I found the 2nd article here http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/07/11/us-iraq-reuters-idUSL0539996520080711 but I haven't yet found the first one that Manning referenced.

In the end, CENTCOM stonewalled Reuter's request for 2 and a half years and the only footage that they have to analyze is the footage provided by Manning and released by Wikileaks.

According to Al Jazeera, after the Wikileaks publication in 2010, CENTCOM claimed that "The US military has said it cannot find its copy of a video showing two helicopters involved in a deadly attack in Baghdad in 2007." http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2010/04/20104814952153608.html

[pnwmom]

52. And he also released thousands of diplomatic cables indiscriminately, thereby putting

the lives of innocent allies at risk.

That action was nothing like exposing the war crimes at Abu Ghraib; nor was it comparable to some of the other Manning releases, such as the helicopter videos -- which were arguably justifiable.

Unfortunately, it seems that he basically released whatever he could get his hands on, without regard to consequences.

[jeff47]

83. What, specifically, were these violations?

Could you list at least one specific incident?

[Pelican]

93. You know man..

Stuff...

Bad stuff...

[sabrina 1]

94. I thought you knew the facts surrounding the Manning case. Are you saying you do not?

[jeff47]

95. I do. I want to hear your interpretation.

So could you name one violation? Two would be lovely.

Dodging by saying "you don't know anything about the case" is not a terribly effective tactic, btw.

[sabrina 1]

101. I'd like to hear your interpretation as I have many times stated the facts about this case. I don't

recall your ever doing that to my knowledge. So what, in your opinion, prompted Manning to go from being an excellent analyst and loyal soldier to do what he ended up doing? Either you know or you don't. Hint, peace activists as far away as Afghanistan know.

[jeff47]

104. Really? You can't even write a single sentence describing a violation?

Not even a single sentence? Perhaps just a word or two?

It's so odd that you claim the information he released is chock full of violations, but can't even list a single one. You'd think with tens of thousands of documents released, you'd manage to name a single one.

So what, in your opinion, prompted Manning to go from being an excellent analyst and loyal soldier to do what he ended up doing?

My position is war is hell, and fucks people up. Some people respond to that by destroying themselves in some way. If Manning had resorted to alcohol abuse as his method of personal destruction, he probably would have received an honorable discharge by now.

It's really a shame you can't be bothered to list a single violation when you seem to care so much about this case.

[sabrina 1]

115. As I thought, you have no knowledge of this case yet take a position on it. My references were to

Manning's motives, not the revelations themselves. Although most of them were from the Bush War Crime Era so I fail to see why that would upset any Democrat. We were screaming for the press to reveal the truth about that illegal war, until Bush was gone apparently.

Your position that 'war is hell' is wrong. That is NOT what motivated Manning. What motivated him was that he witnessed war crimes and reported them in order to try to stop them. Strange you did not know that yet have formed opinions which would be hard to do without knowing the actual reason for his actions.

What do you mean 'what violations'? Torture is a violation as far as I know. Have you read ANYTHING about this case? Do you think Bush was innocent of any crimes?

Are you aware that most of what Manning revealed happened DURING the Bush years? MOST of it?

He witnessed war crimes, as did many soldiers and when he tried to stop them, he was told basically, to shut up. THAT is what motivated him, he was not crazy because of the war. He did not lose his principles. He thought it was his duty to try to stop crimes against peaceful demonstrators. He was WRONG. But NOT on his principles, he was wrong to think that his country supported those principles.

It's really a shame that you have not taken the time to learn something about about an issue you choose to attack others about, people who actually have taken the time to learn about..

[jeff47]

127. No, I have plenty of knowledge.

Yet you still can't manage to list a single incident.

It's almost like you are desperately trying to hide the fact you don't have an incident to list.

Which is not shocking, because I've asked you that exact same question many times, in many different threads. Yet you keep not being able to list a single incident.

Although most of them were from the Bush War Crime Era so I fail to see why that would upset any Democrat. We were screaming for the press to reveal the truth about that illegal war, until Bush was gone apparently.

Great! What incident did Manning leak? We'll be able to have Bush sent to the Hague if Manning released such information.

Oh wait....you can't name a single incident.

What motivated him was that he witnessed war crimes and reported them in order to try to stop them.

Great! Name one incident Manning witnessed. Or one war crime he leaked.

Oh wait....you can't name a single incident.

What do you mean 'what violations'? Torture is a violation as far as I know.

Great! Name one incident of torture that Manning exposed.

Oh wait....you can't name a single incident.

He thought it was his duty to try to stop crimes against peaceful demonstrators.

Great! Name one incident where Manning released information about a crime against peaceful demonstrators.

Oh wait....you can't name a single incident.

It's really a shame that you have not taken the time to learn something about about an issue you choose to attack others about, people who actually have taken the time to learn about..

It's really a shame you're lying.

See, if you were telling the truth, you'd be able to name a single incident. But you can't. Because you are talking about what other people have said about Manning. And since they did not list a single incident, you can't. Because you don't know of any specific incidents.

Instead, you tell us "there's war crimes!!". Because someone else told you there were war crimes. And you never bothered to ask them for specifics. Instead you attack people asking for examples in an attempt to drive them away. I'm guessing you don't want to have to consider that maybe your sources were wrong.

There are a lot of Republicans who insist there were thousands of "welfare queens" driving Cadillacs. Yet were unable to point to a single one.

Doesn't that sound familiar?

[sabrina 1]

149. Every question you just asked demonstrates that you know nothing about this case.

You are embarrassing yourself, which is fine by me.

I love to see the evasions and excuses from the anti-whistle blower contingency.

Still can't answer the question 'what did Manning witness that motivated him to become a whistle-blower?'

Bradley Manning is a hero. Except to Bush supporters. To them he is a criminal. But to right wingers anyone who exposes Bush War Crimes is a 'traitor'.

[Ikonoklast]

183. Manning IS NOT A WHISTLE-BLOWER.

You keep stating that as if it a fact, over and over and over when the fact is he decided to take matters into his own hands instead of following the route to be a legitimate whistle-blower.

If he had, this conversation would not be taking place.


Manning decided to place himself above the law, the safety of others, and his own oath.


Love this at the end...

Bradley Manning is a hero. Except to Bush supporters. To them he is a criminal. But to right wingers anyone who exposes Bush War Crimes is a 'traitor'.

Your usual crap that anyone that disagrees with your position is a Bush supporter and a right winger.

The only person that is embarrassing themselves in this thread is you. Logic is meaningless to your arguments, your emotions trump all.

[sabrina 1]

199. Manning is the very definition of a Whistle Blower.

Here is a recent statement from last week from one of the world's most respected and recognized whistle blowers himself, Daniel Ellsberg, on Bradley Manning. You might want to read the entire statement as it is clear you know nothing about this case. He makes it simple so you don't have to slog through thousands of reports, as I have done over the past few years.

A Salute to Bradley Manning, Whistleblower

Peace Prize

For the third straight year, Manning has been nominated for the Noble Peace Prize by, among others, Tunisian parliamentarians. Given the role the WikiLeaks cables played in the Arab Spring, and their role in speeding up the end of the Iraq War, I can think of no one more deserving who is deserving of the peace prize.

He's also deserving of the Congressional Medal of Honor. This medal, awarded by Congress--and not the executive branch--is given to military personnel, who during wartime, do what they should do for their country and their comrades, at the greatest risk to themselves.

Of course, there have been many who shown great courage on the battlefield in Afghanistan and Iraq. But some have noted that we don't have the named heroes of the kind we did during World War I and World War II, such as Sergeant York or Audie Murphy.

I see a hero in these wars whose example should inspire others. His name Bradley Manning.

I believe Ellsberg knows what he is talking about. Your very questions unfortunately demonstrate that you do not. I will take Ellsberg's very informed opinion over yours any day. Many people such as yourself, felt the same way about Ellsberg at the time. He was called a traitor, prosecuted on 12 felony counts, all later dismissed, and his life was threatened, his career destroyed.

But history and the SC ruling in favor of freedom of the press, has shown that he was a hero, accepted now by a majority of people and his detractors are hardly a footnote in history.

The same is true of Manning. History will record what he did as a courageous act, AFTER this country returns to some semblance of the rule of law.

Save your personal attacks btw, they don't affect me in the slightest. I have been threatened and attacked by the masters of internet attacks, on the far right, and long ago became immune to them. Just trying to save you time just fyi.

[treestar]

222. You keep repeating that

so if you know more, you need to share that information in order to be convincing.

[Tarheel_Dem]

116. It's called "evasion". You probably won't get a straightforward answer, but thanks for trying.

[jeff47]

130. Oh, this is about the 7th or 8th thread where she's done this.

She'll keep replying getting more and more indignant. I really don't mind, because it demonstrates just how terrible her argument is.

[Tarheel_Dem]

140. 7th or 8th? You obviously stopped counting. It's a poor tactic, but used to extremes...

in this case.

[sabrina 1]

151. It's you again. I really am puzzled by your obsession with me.

So are you also of the opinion that torture is not a crime? Since you're here and all.

[Tarheel_Dem]

188. Perhaps you could provide one of your infamous "Links" to where I intimated such a thing?

[Pelican]

106. Your referenced peace activists...

... don't think that anything should be classified.

All comings and goings and documents and communications of a government should be available. Do you agree with that?

"Ghulamai thought through the ironic process of how governments designate some documents ‘secret,’ and how he would presume that the person who shares those secrets was a ‘criminal.’ But Ali said that governments chiefly hide ‘secrets’ from the public to maintain power. Hakim asked Abdulhai to imagine himself as the head of a government or of a large family. “If you are working for the good of the family or the state, would you need to do things secretly?” he asked.

“No,” Abdulhai replied. “If I have power, and I am truly working for the best interests of my people, I will not need to do things in secret.”"

[sabrina 1]

121. The Iraq War was illegal. Everything about it should have been revealed in a court of law and

the War Criminal Bush administration, the torturers, all of them SHOULD have been prosecuted. But we don't have any rule of law anymore in this country, except for the little people.

The peace activists are correct. When something is illegal there should be no protection for the criminals and the crimes should be made public. We democrats USED to believe that when Bush was president. What happened?

Iraq was not an enemy of the US. We were not attacked nor even threatened by Iraq. That is why they wanted to keep everything so secret, to hide their crimes. Those peace activists are absolutely correct. The only reason for the cover ups was the criminality of the whole enterprise.

[Pelican]

126. Got it...

Fuzzy unicorns for everyone... The world should run on how your emotions dictate...

The fact that you feel it should have been illegal has zero bearing on the fact that it was authorized by your US government representatives.

Manning made the voluntary choice to join that organization and to go to Iraq and he made the choice to break the rules that he had voluntarily agreed to follow. The consequences are his alone...

[sabrina 1]

153. No, I'm surprised you think the 'world should run on emotions'. I disagree, I think it should

run on the rule of law we claim to be so proud of.

Manning did what many moral people have done throughout history. I guess you are of the opinion that all those heroes throughout history who 'broke the rules' were in the wrong. There were always those who would have agreed with you, but history has proven you and them wrong as it will in Manning's case.

I'm thinking of the foundation of this country. Do you think we would be better off if those 'terrorists' had followed the law and not become traitors to the king?

How about those who opposed Hitler and were put to death for what we call courage? They 'broke the rules' when they saw the wrong that was being done. Should they not have? According to your logic, no one should ever 'break the rules' because the 'rules' are EVERYTHING.

Is torture a crime? What would you do if you saw a war crime being committed? Would you look the other way, participate, or would you try to stop it? What 'rules' make torture okay? Inform us please, you've been saying a lot, but it's mostly emotional defenses of 'rules'. It's hard to know what you think of our laws, international laws. Are those 'rules' okay to break?

You are selective in which rules you think should not be broken.

Here's what I get from your comments:

1) A US Administration lying to Congress to start a war, breaking both domestic and international law by using torture, white phospherous, killing innocent people, possible hundreds of thousands of people, is okay.

2) A US soldier realizing he has been lied to becoming a whistle blower and exposing the lies, trying to stop torture is somehow 'breaking rules'.

Which rules are broken when you report a crime? Who caused the most harm? Bush or Manning? How many people did Manning torture and kill?

And why are you so emotional about anyone who believes that our laws and the international laws against torture and other war crimes that we ratified, should be observed? Do you oppose those laws?

[Pelican]

159. At this point...

... you have been reduced to making things up as you go.

You even got a little Godwin in there. Nice touch...

Your M.O. in this and other threads seems to be to ramble until the people you are conversing with get bored and then you declare victory.

If that's what you need then by all means, go right ahead.

[Number23]

163. NAILED IT

Your M.O. in this and other threads seems to be to ramble until the people you are conversing with get bored and then you declare victory.

You abso-fucking-lutely nailed it.

[zappaman]

284. Well done!

Your M.O. in this and other threads seems to be to ramble until the people you are conversing with get bored and then you declare victory.

Exactly.

[jeff47]

131. Ok. So what did that have to do with Castro's favorite cigar?

One of the tidbits Manning leaked was Castro's favorite brand of cigar. How'd that relate to the Iraq war?

[AnalystInParadise]

132. You keep saying that

and while my heart agrees with you, my head and my brain cannot. If illegal, then why hasn't the UN brought it up, Kofi Annan made a statement in 2004 saying in his viewpoint the war is illegal, however in reality the UN Security Council, as outlined in Article 39 of the UN Charter, has the ability to rule on the legality of the war, but has yet not been asked by any UN member nation to do so. No nation has asked the UN to rule on the legality of the Iraq war. My brain tells me because they know it is not an illegal act, might be an immoral one, but not an illegal one. Secondly, Bush was clever enough to get the support of large bipartisan majorities, and have the US Congress pass the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. This covered his back side domestically. Again much like Cortes used the law to his advantage in his dealing with the Aztecs in 1519, this was very much a legal war. The fucked up part is, they made a situation i believe in my heart to be illegal, legal by twisting the law.

[liberal_at_heart]

135. a lot like how corporations and the 1% get away with what they do. They pay

politicians to write the laws for them in their favor. Unethical, immoral, and just plain disgusting, but still legal none the less.

[sabrina 1]

141. The UN will never do anything the US does not want them to do. But other countries have

tried to prosecute Bush's torturers eg, Spain had jurisdiction in that case and started the process after waiting until after the election in 2008 to give the new administration the opportunity to do the right thing themselves. But when this president announced that we would be 'moving forward' from the past, note he did not say there were no crimes committed, just that it would be better for us to move forward, Spain began the process of starting the prosecutions of six of Bush's administration officials.

We now know from the Wikileaks cables that the Obama administration pressured the Spanish Court personally not to go ahead with those prosecutions. So they are on hold, NOT dismissed, but on hold.

No one will go against the US. We have ways of punishing those who do. We would withhold funding from the UN eg and that would be disastrous for them.

The bottom line is that we are far too powerful for anyone to take on so it is up to us. The UN would go after Bush in a minute if they had the support of this country. But we have made it clear now with a Democratic administration as well as the Republicans, that the US will never hold its own war criminals accountable. There is a price being paid for this position however. We have lost our moral authority.

China and other nations are now using this against us. Eg, when the State Dept had the gall to admonish China and Venezuala for 'human rights violations' both countries responded with a list of the egregious human rights crimes committed by this country in Iraq and elsewhere and basically told us to go Cheney ourselves. We still have the power and money to intimidate people, but much less than we used to have. Those illegal wars have weakened this country both morally and economically and we haven't even managed to win any of them.

As for the legality question, I pointed this out in another comment, no one is obligated to abide by bad laws, something WE the US made clear in Nuremberg. To make that argument, that once something is made 'legal' no matter how bad, it must be respected, is to say that the Germans should not have been prosecuted as the horrors they committed were all perfectly legal.

[jberryhill]

154. So you thought the war was legal...

...until Bradley Manning exposed something that made you believe it was illegal?

[sabrina 1]

158. I know it's late, but even that doesn't explain why anyone would write such a totally

bizarre comment.

I would ask of alcohol was involved, but that wouldn't be nice.

Maybe you have me confused with someone else, or could it be a ploy, a tactic of some kind, hopefully not as it would be a spectacular and embarrassing failure.

So why on earth would someone reading this thread ask such a peculiar and off-the-wall question?

Do you read comments btw, or do you just see a name and start writing without thinking?

DU, I love it. Always entertaining.

[AnalystInParadise]

166. We are so

powerful that no one will go against us, but we cannot stop Assange and Wikileaks? Are you fucking serious?

So we are blackmailing the UN to keep George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld out of jail? Again are you fucking serious?

And a touch of Godwin's law. You did bring up the Nazis first, so you know you automatically lose the argument, right?

So let me help you Sabrina. I will act like you have posted a rational cogent argument, even though we all know you haven't. You have done nothing but bleat "it's all war crimes" like a broken record without providing one fact at all today. All you have said is that anyone who disagrees does not understand the case. I understand this case very well. At the heart of the matter is the very nature of what it means to be an Intelligence Analyst and what it means to be trusted with access to Classified data. I was a 96B/35F for twenty years, that is the same MOS or job category as Bradley Manning. I know exactly what Bradley Manning was taught and on what day he received his Infosec brief because I was an instructor at the school house while Bradley Manning was a student there. I did not teach him, nor will I ever claim to even remember him. However, I did teach many of his peers and I know they received the same Infosec briefing he did. The Infosec class for those who do not know is a class that outlines how information is classified, why it is classified, the proper ways to declassify it and why doing it wrongly can impact national security and how it can get people killed if done incorrectly. Every 35F at Fort Huachuca gets this class. It is mandatory to pass a test on this class to graduate the course. The steps for being a proper whistle blower are identified and the steps are discussed to contact Congress if you feel that you are witnessing crimes. What is not covered is leaking classified data that you have not read to a non state actor for no reason other than you wanted to. What is not covered is lying and transporting classified material out of a SCIF to your room and then using the regular Internet to contact others on how to disseminate this information. What is not covered is betraying the oath you took to protect and safeguard any and all classified material from wrongful exploitation or incorrect dissemination, what is not covered is lying to every person in your chain of command about your activities while you have this sacred trust bestowed upon you. Personally I and many people in the Intelligence Community consider Bradley Manning a traitor, he witnessed no war crimes, yet claimed he did. He released classified material after he swore upon his own good name not to do so. And finally, he betrayed every soldier he worked with by giving information that was classified to a non state actor who admittedly edited that information to embarrass the United States. Here is the problem Sabrina, there have been over 50,000 Intelligence Analysts that have served in the Army since 9/11. Why is Bradley Manning the only one that even attempted this? The war had lasted over 9 years before he was caught, and yet no one else had even attempted to claim war crimes in the same way that Bradley Manning did. Abu Ghraib was exposed because it was in fact a war crime, it was exposed by pictures that other analysts took and posted and it was exposed after that fact. If 50,000 analysts have had access to the SIPRNET and knew they could expose "war crimes" through disseminating that information why didn't they? Are you telling me that a mediocre student and terrible Intelligence Analyst (because Bradley Manning was both, I have seen his Intelligence school house academic records)is the only one to have come up with this plan? Even though thousands of soldiers were burning files from the SIPRNET and transferring them for legal dissemination daily for over 8 years, no one else thought this up? The logical conclusion and the one that you will never address is that Bradley Manning released no war crimes in his data dump. He incriminated himself and earned himself a long stint in prison because he felt that he was above the system. He was not, and now he will pay. So please feel free to answer this with facts.....You are not big on facts I can see, but I am asking politely. Demonstrate a war crime that Manning exposed, or demonstrate how the war was illegal according to U.S. law, or even international law. I await your response. As for the previous poster who said you wait until your opponents get bored and then you declare victory? On this topic I will never become bored, this is a very personal story to me. This is a little shitbag that decided he knew more than everyone that has ever worn the Military Intelligence Corps crest on their uniform. This is the story of a not very bright young man that decided he was the ultimate declassifying authority for Intelligence, nevermind that there are hundreds of regulations to declassify said material. Finally this is the story of a young man that threw his life away for nothing, he is not a hero, he will never be in the same realm as Daniel Ellsberg (a real hero), instead he will rot most of his life away in a jail cell having accomplished nothing except ruining his life. He witnessed and released data on zero war crimes, other than your opinion without factual backing, prove to me that he did so please. Thank you.

[Bobbie Jo]

175. Absolutely nailed it.

btw...as others have cautioned, I suspect you won't get a straight answer or anything that resembles honest dialogue with this one.

Platitudes, opinion, and strawman arguments. Lather, rinse, repeat, etc.....

Thank you for the reality-based post.

[msanthrope]

182. FYI..the poster you are conversing with thought Anwar Awlaki was a 'non-violent' cleric.

She also claimed he had been in the country 2 years before his death.

Which should give you some idea of what's going on.

[sabrina 1]

197. Facts? Okay, here are some facts from your (and my) hero, Daniel Elsberg on Bradley Manning:

A Salute to Bradley Manning, Whistleblower

For the third straight year, Manning has been nominated for the Noble Peace Prize by, among others, Tunisian parliamentarians. Given the role the WikiLeaks cables played in the Arab Spring, and their role in speeding up the end of the Iraq War, I can think of no one more deserving who is deserving of the peace prize.

He's also deserving of the Congressional Medal of Honor. This medal, awarded by Congress--and not the executive branch--is given to military personnel, who during wartime, do what they should do for their country and their comrades, at the greatest risk to themselves.

Of course, there have been many who shown great courage on the battlefield in Afghanistan and Iraq. But some have noted that we don't have the named heroes of the kind we did during World War I and World War II, such as Sergeant York or Audie Murphy.

I see a hero in these wars whose example should inspire others. His name Bradley Manning.

Missing the point again by you:

You did bring up the Nazis first, so you know you automatically lose the argument, right?

Um no, I brought up the fact that it was the US which was mostly responsible for creating the International laws regarding human rights abuses during wartime, as a result of the horrors perpetrated during wartime by that monstrous regime. Out of all that horror came something the US and other nations who contributed, that we have been justifiably proud of. You might be familiar with those International Laws, or maybe not.

Once again those 'rules' you mentioned, according to the Geneva Conventions SHOULD be ignored WHEN they violate the very laws the US so proudly helped to write. That is exactly what Bradley Manning did, he adhered to his oath and he followed the rules of war as established by the International Community.

Those are the facts, not according to me but according to the very man you call a hero, Daniel Elsberg, who has read enough of the revelations to disagree with you completely regarding what Manning revealed in terms of war crimes.

The logical conclusion and the one that you will never address is that Bradley Manning released no war crimes in his data dump.

I have addressed it many times and so have many others including Daniel Elsberg. Here he is again on the crimes revealed and the ones witnessed by Manning:

Torture

Some of the most critical documents leaked by Manning revealed torture by the Iraqi government, which the US knew about, and according to the international treaty on torture, the US should have required investigations.

In fact, the Iraq war logs show hundreds of instances of cases of torture, and in every case, the soldiers were given the illegal order not to investigate.

You are also incorrect, in the opinion of Elsberg, regarding the classification of the documents released by Manning. Here is again on that subject:

Manning was discriminating

Critics have alleged that a major difference between my case and Manning's is that I was discriminating in what I leaked, while Manning wasn't. He just dumped some material that doesn't need to be out, they say. This is simply false.

First, it's important to point out most of the material he put out was unclassified. The rest was classified 'secret,' which is relatively low level. All of the Pentagon Papers was classified top secret.

But in a fact no one seems to observe from his statement, Manning was working within a "SCIF," which stands for Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. To get into a SCIF, a soldier needs a clearance higher than top secret. This means he had access to the highest classified material, such as communications and signals intelligence. This means he could've put out information top secret and higher, and purposely chose not to do so.

You are entitled to your opinions regarding this case, and so am I. I have read extensively as much material as I could on the case, on Manning's stated reasons for what he did and what he revealed and yes, crimes were revealed and nothing has been done about them.

I respect the opinions of people like Eslberg who, contrary to the opinions of those who refuse to familiarize themselves with the facts of this case, states clearly that what Manning did was exactly what he did.

One more point you asked about, also addressed by Elsberg:

Here is the problem Sabrina, there have been over 50,000 Intelligence Analysts that have served in the Army since 9/11. Why is Bradley Manning the only one that even attempted this? The war had lasted over 9 years before he was caught, and yet no one else had even attempted to claim war crimes in the same way that Bradley Manning did.

That is what makes a hero. Someone who is willing to risk everything to do what most of us will not do. I know I would not have the courage to do what he did. Here is Elsberg's answer to your question:

Of course, there have been many who shown great courage on the battlefield in Afghanistan and Iraq. But some have noted that we don't have the named heroes of the kind we did during World War I and World War II, such as Sergeant York or Audie Murphy.

I see a hero in these wars whose example should inspire others. His name Bradley Manning.

I have spoken to Iraq Veterans, most of them brave, courageous men and women who I admire greatly. As Elsberg says, there are different kinds of courage. It takes a special kind of courage to report war crimes and few ever do so. Elsberg was one, Kevin Benderman was another, and now Bradley Manning. All knew the risk to their own lives and careers. There was one other who stands out for me, but she sadly, it is reported, took her own life. She too is a hero.

You asked for a rational discussion but chose instead to make personal attacks. I understand the reluctance to support Manning in your case. The problem is that while you no doubt are a brave and patriotic person, you do not know the circumstances that drove Manning to do what he did. I appreciate your input and admire you for your service to the country. I can also admire someone like Manning who did what he thought was the right thing to do, to abide by the laws he understood to be in place, which sadly so far, appears not to be the case. History however, as in the case of Elsberg, will take a different view of the events occurring right now.

[AnalystInParadise]

203. So to summarize

You have no facts. Just hyperbole and opinion. Manning broke laws that is a fact. Military justice doesn't care about the context, that is also a fact. And finally screaming war crimes like a lunatic on a message board does not make those accusations real. Still waiting for a single fact that Manning uncovered a war crime or a single fact that he is not a criminal. I suppose with you it shall be very similar to waiting for Godot.....I will gladly discuss any fact you present me that shows manning as anything other than a criminal. I will also continue to mock you for presenting hyperbole, opinion and conjecture as factual information. So please continue.

[SlimJimmy]

251. That's the most cogent and concise argument I have seen in this thread. Bravo.

[zappaman]

285. Great post!

Careful, you might be accused of not being a Democrat by DU's Democratic Purity Policewoman!

[SlimJimmy]

181. Manning released material that had nothing to do with his *superiors*

Yes he took his oath seriously and refused to keep secret violations by his superiors of that same oath. Are you saying that when someone in the military witnesses war crimes they are supposed to remain silent, to cover for the war criminals?

On 25 November 2009, WikiLeaks released 570,000 intercepts of pager messages sent on the day of the September 11 attacks. Bradley Manning (see below) commented that those were from an NSA database. Among the released messages are communications between Pentagon officials and New York City Police Department.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_published_by_WikiLeaks#9.2F11_pager_messages

Not a single person has the ability to read and understand 570,000 documents in the short period of time that Manning had access to them. What he did was *dump* thousands upon thousands of classified documents to a CD, then release that (mostly unread) to Wikileaks. Add to this that he did not work for or with the NSA or New York Police Department, and your argument starts to fall apart rather quickly.

His motives might have been honorable, but the execution was both sloppy and criminal.

[sabrina 1]

192. See Daniel Elsberg on what was revealed by Manning. I will take his word over anonymous

internet commenters any day. I just posted his opinion of this case in this thread. You can find that response unless of course you think Elsberg was also a traitor.

[SlimJimmy]

196. If Elsberg had signed a non-disclosure agreement with the US government,

which I believe he did as an employee of Rand and having access to these documents, then he would certainly have been subject to criminal prosecution. That he was not prosecuted has no real bearing on the notion that he was certainly subject to prosecution under the US Code.

But more importantly, and you didn't address it in your reply, so please do now:

Do you believe that manning read the over 570,000 documents that he released to wikileaks? Do you think it was wise for him to release documents, the actual content of which, he was unaware of? The number of documents, by the way, is not an internet rumor, it's fact.

[sabrina 1]

198. Elsberg was prosecuted with several felony charges. He was retired from the military

at the time so was a civilian, meaning his trial would be conducted in a civilian court. That allowed him to post bail while awaiting trial. His case was eventually dismissed but he WAS prosecuted.

Manning was still in the military when he did what Ellsberg did so became subject to a court martial, a secret for the most part, trial rather than a trial in an open court. Considering the top secret work Ellsberg was doing on the Vietnam War, he certainly was considered as much of 'traitor' by many people at the time, and Nixon certainly wanted him prosecuted, as Manning. But when the government also went after press, the NYT took the case to the SC. That ruling determined that the press did nothing wrong by publishing the material they received from Ellsberg.

We live in different times now where the government doesn't appear to believe in freedom of the press, thus the persecution of multi-award winning International News Org, Wikileaks and the effort to them what was proposed for the NYT during the Ellsberg case. We have even heard calls to prosecute the NYT and all the other news orgs who published the Wikileaks, from morons like Joe Lieberman eg. But that SC ruling will make it difficult for such prosecutions of the press thankfully.

Manning was a military analyst with top secret clearing. Yet, he did not reveal any top secret information which he could have. He did not have read every single page, although he has stated that he spent hours reading what he eventually revealed. All he needed to know was the classification of the material. See Ellsberg again on this subject. MOST of what was revealed was 'classified' NOT secret, some was not for public consumption, but Manning deliberately excluded any Top Secret material despite having access to it.

As Ellsberg said, he was thoughtful and careful about what he released and showed responsibility in what he did.

Now you can go on refusing to learn the facts of this case, and that's fine. I prefer to know the truth.

Ellsberg made a wonderful statement this past week about Manning. Once again, he called him a 'hero'. If I had not come to that conclusion myself from all I have read, Ellsberg's opinion of him would certainly have caused me to think about it and confirms for me that my own conclusions about this courageous soldier was accurate.

[SlimJimmy]

204. Okay, at least we agree that Manning couldn't have possibly read all of the material

he released. With that said, how could he know the actual content of what he was releasing? We know, for instance, that some of the cables revealed diplomatic and military sources. How on earth could you conclude that since Manning knew *generally* what these hundreds of thousands of documents contained, that made it okay? I repeat military and diplomatic sources. Not even remotely excusable in any context.

And, by the way, I've read through the various Elsberg interviews many times. I've also read a number of pieces he's written sans interview relative to Manning since this case broke in the press. I don't necessarily agree with his opinions, but he certainly has the right to have them concerning these matters

Even the administration has serious issues with the release:

The Obama administration has said releasing the information threatened valuable military and diplomatic sources and strained America's relations with other governments. Experts say that by seeking to punish Manning, the administration is sending a strong message that such leaks will not be tolerated.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/02/27/mannings-request-for-case-dismissal-denied.html

The Obama administration has said the release of the documents threatened valuable military and diplomatic sources and strained America's relations with other governments. The administration has aggressively pursued people accused of leaking classified material, and Manning's is the highest-profile case.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/army-gi-says-he-leaked-secrets-spark-war-debate

Just in case you didn't like my first source.

This might be a good time for you to read more about what Manning *actually* did, as opposed to relying on opinion pieces.

He did not have read every single page, although he has stated that he spent hours reading what he eventually revealed. All he needed to know was the classification of the material.

[sabrina 1]

214. We don't agree on your premise, which is false. As Gates himself said 'no harm was done'

by the revelations. That is because Manning who was an excellent analyst who knew what he was releasing. Most of what he released was from the Bush years. Why would you want to protect Bush war crimes. I support every revelation of Bush's crimes and applaud Manning for having the courage to do it.

It's clear you have little knowledge of this case or the facts surrounding it.

I know what Manning actually did, I have read many of the War Logs which do reveal crimes, apparently you rely on politicians and our MSM propaganda machine rather than doing the research yourself.

My question is, why would any Democrat want to protect the Bush administration? Or is it possible they actually don't know what was in the War Logs and are under the false impression, because of the timing of the releases, that they were about the Obama administration. IF that is the reason for the few Democrats who are anti-free-press, that is even more egregious. Because it means they don't care about principles, they are attempting to protect only their team.

As I said, learn something about a topic if you are going to try to discuss it. Your comments reveal a disturbing lack of information, and being kind, I am assuming you would not object to the Bush crimes being revealed and were not aware that this is what most of the War Logs were about.

[SlimJimmy]

223. Manning mindlessly released hundreds of thousands of classified documents (fact)

Most of which he hadn't read or had a clue what was contained therein. The Obama administration says he did quite a bit of harm in the process. (I quoted from two sources) something you conveniently failed to address. I think I'll go with the administration on this one. By the way, it was only about 200,000 pages of war logs. The rest were State Department, NSA, and New York Police department communications. Try to get the facts straight so we can have an informed discussion.

Here's an illustrative example of your absurd contention. If you were going to read a 750,000 page novel, how long do you think it would take if you read two hundred pages a day every day?

Answer: Ten years.

He did not have read every single page, although he has stated that he spent hours reading what he eventually revealed.

He lied. Either he read *all* of what he released or he didn't. I think I've proved quite conclusively they he absolutely could *not* have read them all in the short period of time he had access prior to release. He sure as hell didn't have the luxury of ten years.

[sabrina 1]

246. You've expressed an opinion, proving nothing. Daniel Ellsberg put it very clearly to dispel

the propaganda being sold to the people that Manning didn't know what he was releasing. He had access to top secret material as well as other levels of classification, but did not release any of the top secret material. Fyi, when material is classified there are degrees of classification. Manning was very discerning about what he chose to release because he knew those classifications. Aside from the issue of how much he read or did not read, he knew he was not releasing top secret data.

Why do you think he did not release any of the top secret material he had access to? Why do you think Gates stated that no harm had been done by the material he did release? Is Gates a liar? Is Ellsberg a liar? Is everyone who actually understands what was release, a liar?



As I said, you are free to have your opinion without understanding the facts, but the facts are, Manning was very discerning about what he released. Most of it related to the Bush Era so I fail to understand why you are working so hard to defend Bush. I applaud anyone who exposes the crimes of the Bush administration. Manning is a hero.

[SlimJimmy]

249. You still won't answer the questions I asked. I can understand why. That wouldn't fit into the

narrative you've built that Manning was just a guy who did the right thing, and got caught up in events that he didn't create for himself. You won't respond to the fact that he released both military and foreign sources, or that the Obama administration has taken an extremely dim view of his actions. You won't admit that he couldn't have possibly read all of the material he released, or that what he did was both sloppy and criminal.

The fact that he didn't release TS material has no bearing on the fact that he *did* release hundreds of thousands of pages of material that *was* classified. A release that he knew was criminal, and a release he knew violated his non-disclosure agreement.

As to your assertion that I am merely defending the Bush administration, that's just laughable. Many good Democrats here (and even in this thread) have stated directly that what he did was both wrong and criminal. Are *all* of them secret Republicans? Please ... try to stay focused on the issue at hand. Calling into question a person's loyalty to the Democratic party is an old and too often used tactic here when one is backed into a corner. Trust me when I tell you that it has absolutely no affect on what and when I post.

Finally and really to the point:

He had many avenues *outside* of his chain of command that he could have used to disclose the wrongdoing that he found had occurred. Avenues ranging from the Army IG to what the military refers to as a "Congressional." A simple letter to his Congressman would have started an investigation. He didn't do either of those. Instead, he chose to release, without vetting, hundreds of thousands of classified documents. He has no excuse.

In my opinion, Manning is not a hero.

[AnalystInParadise]

231. i taught at the school house

Manning was not an excellent analyst. His instructor was recently at Fort Meade giving his testimony on what a substandard analyst Manning was. This instructor gave his deposition on how he tried to get Manning removed from the 35F course twice because Manning was such a shitty analyst. And if you ask me to prove it, all we have to do is wait for the court martial when this will be discussed.

So again I taught there while Manning was there, not my student but he was not an excellent analyst. You have posted a lot of bullshit but this takes the cake.

He was such an amazing analyst he was reprimanded for an OPSEC violation while a student there.

[KoKo]

212. Thanks and +1 ...Younger DU'ers don't know what or who Daniel Ellsberg was about...

I sometimes worry they would have "thrown Ellsberg Under the Bus" with a lock and key so he would never get out!

Thanks for your background!

[AnalystInParadise]

237. Ellsberg was a true hero and patriot

Manning is a traitor to his battle buddies and the oaths he swore. And a traitor for no good reason, had he exposed a crime I would be on his side like I am with Ellsberg, The Abu Ghraib and Gitmo whistle blowers. But Manning exposed no crimes and will have ruined his life not in the noble endeavor of exposing real crimes, but in this embarrassment that some people try to say are crimes.

[KoKo]

241. But,Dan Ellsberg considers Manning a Hero...Link:

Daniel Ellsberg: WikiLeaks suspect Bradley Manning deserves to be seen as a hero

Former Defense Department official Daniel Ellsberg praised WikiLeaks suspect Bradley Manning in video published Thursday.

“I have a considerable identification with whistle-blowers, but Bradley above all because it is the first time in 40 years since the Pentagon Papers that someone has put out a large raft of material. And therefore he does deserve to be, I believe, seen as a hero,” he told AFP.

Ellsberg leaked the so-called Pentagon Papers to the New York Times in 1969, revealing the government had lied about the progress of the Vietnam war. The incident marked a major turning point in public opinion of the war and ignited a famous legal case that was eventually decided by the Supreme Court.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/30/daniel-ellsberg-wikileaks-suspect-bradley-manning-deserves-to-be-seen-as-a-hero/

[sabrina 1]

250. That's what people said about Ellsberg also. Your constant refrain that Manning exposed no

crimes disagrees with the facts. Facts which I provided for you from Ellsberg himself. Manning DID expose war crimes and the fact that you do not consider, or do not know, those acts to be crimes is very sad indeed. We go around the world claiming to be the world's moral arbiter. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and all the other war crimes committed by the Bush administration, some of which WERE revealed in what Manning released, and I will take Ellsberg's word on that even if I did not know it myself, were well known long before someone revealed them.

So let me ask you this? There were reports of the crimes at Abu Ghraib from independent journalists long before the photos were released. Why were they not dealt with until it was virtually impossible to deny them?

I read of torture at Abu Ghraib in early 2004. Yet nothing was done about it.

Guantanamo was always a crime in action yet nothing was done about the reports of how those detainees got there either.

So it appears to me that crimes are only dealt with now AFTER they cannot be denied any longer. Worse, apparently we have been so desentized as a nation that we no longer view torture as a violation of our own and of International laws. So there are innocent people being tortured by the US Government, who cares? Well some of us still do.

And what about the 'ghost planes' and the 'black sites' all over the world? Everyone knew about them from reports from independent journalists. Who has been held accountable for any of these crimes??

You want this soldier to be punished. He did not create this situation where so many crimes have already been revealed and so many more going on such as Guantanamo Bay eg.

Can you point to anyone in a position of power so far who has been held accountable for the horrific crimes that HAVE been revealed? Manning killed no one, tortured no one, put no one in danger, as Gates stated. He did not lie to the American people to start these useless, deadly wars.

Seems to me you are angry at the wrong person.

[AnalystInParadise]

254. Ellsberg is a hero for the Pentagon Papers

that does not make him an expert on what Manning did. Ellsberg is an expert on what Ellsberg did. And no you have not presented a fact that effects Manning's court martial. A fact of that kind would be a regulation that show Manning did not break the law. You have presented zero facts. Ellsberg supporting Manning does not prove Manning's innocence or prove that Manning did the right thing, all it proves is that Ellsberg agrees with Manning. It is a fact the Ellsberg supports Manning, so huzzah you finally posted a fact. Unfortunately it does nothing to help Manning.

So again please show me a fact that proves Manning exposed a war crime, a fact that shows Manning is innocent, or a fact that shows Manning should not spend many decades in Federal prison. I am not going anywhere, I have all eternity (or at least until Manning's court marital) to talk about this with you. You want so badly for Manning to be set free, but he won't because self confessed criminals almost never go free. And that is what he is.

[Ms. Toad]

15. There is a difference between

expending resources on causes which are important to the LGBT community

and

expending resources on a person who happens to be LGBT - who is encountering consequences becuase he took actions which have no relation to being gay and which do not necessarily garner the general support of the LGBT community.

(I support his actions, but it would not have occurred to me to expect the LGBT community - of which I am a part - to do so as a community.)

[KoKo]

21. Why not? If we Feminists look deeper into issues about our own..as do other support groups

why is Bradley exempt from this? Why did "Gay Pride" throw him "under the bus?"

[Ms. Toad]

75. Being gay does not entitle someone to unquestioned support.

You seem to be suggesting that being gay means we are obligated to support anything else someone does? Should I support Mary Cheney's work on behalf of her father, for example, because she is a lesbian?

As to Manning, there are people within the LGBT community who do not support what he did. I happen to support his actions- but that support has absolutely nothing to do with his being gay.

[pnwmom]

24. +1.

[Laughing Mirror]

19. I not only support him, I admire and respect him

And I would even if were straight.

[KoKo]

22. Absolutely...but, where is the "support network" this kid really needs?

What "IF" he was treated to torture situation...because military saw him as gay and that's why they treated him so inhumanely from the beginning? If he were Female would we not want to support him?

[stevenleser]

28. The same reason some (most) African Americans don't support Clarence Thomas or Herman Cain

If someone called either the 'N' word, then for that issue, African Americans would support them against the bigotry.

Being a member of a discriminated against group doesn't entitle you to support from that group in every endeavor.

[KoKo]

29. Are you equating Bradley Manning with Clarence Thomas or Herman Cain?

That's totally bizarre...there's no comparison.

[stevenleser]

31. Define equating. In the sense that some of their group doesn't support some of what they do? Yes

Are they the same people? No.

Not all LGBT in San Francisco supported Harvey Milk. Most did.

You are using sweeping generalizations when you suggest that any discriminated against group behaves monolithic-ally. That is only a half step away from being discriminatory.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. I see you do respond to some posters

nt

[Nye Bevan]

35. What a ridiculous response to a reasonable analogy (nt)

[sabrina 1]

44. You're comparing Bradley Manning, a person courageous enough to report war crimes when he witnessed

them, a man with a CONSCIENCE, a hero to a large part of the world, to Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain who never did a single thing for anyone but themselves, and in the case of Thomas who caused great harm to so many people in this country?

Everyone who cared about war crimes when Bush was president should be supporting Manning now. And if his actions had been revealed during the Bush administration the 'left' would be fully supportive of him. How do I know? Because the 'left' supported people like Kevin Benderson who reported on war crimes he witnessed in Iraq and was completely outspoken about being asked to 'kill children' by his superiors, something he refused to do.

Had Benderson been unfortunate enough to have done what he did NOW, some on the 'left' would, we now know since it's clear some people's principles depend on who is in office, be slamming him for 'causing harm to the troops' etc etc.

There is simply no comparison between Manning and Thomas, none whatsoever.

[stevenleser]

62. The OP proposes a borderline discriminatory question. I gave an example of why it is discriminatory

If the OP wants to make an argument of why people should or should not support Manning, or Thomas or Cain, that's great.

Using a sweeping generalization about a discriminated against group is not the way to get that done.

[Number23]

65. Ain't nothing "borderline" about it.

[stevenleser]

67. Probably true, but I'm being generous since OP seems oblivious to what they have done here. nt

[sabrina 1]

68. Your analogy was a bad one to make that point. You would need to have compared someone

who had actually done something wrong, someone without ethics or morals to Thomas and Cain.

Manning acted on his belief that people should not be tortured, and that the US should not be handing over people to torturers because they were peacefully protesting, believing, foolishly they probably now know, that we went to Iraq to create a 'democracy'. He tried to do something to stop that from happening, he was ignored.

In his own words he explained why his conscience would not let him just turn away and pretend it wasn't happening. It is clear that he is a man of conscience, a rare thing these days. And because of that, he can in no way be compared to someone like Thomas.

[stevenleser]

72. You cannot get to the point to discuss that if someone is being discriminatory

I won't discuss the merits of any issue if in the course of making the case someone throws in an ethnocentric or religiocentric or homophobic or gender-biased statement.

At that point, discussion of the issue is over and the persons bigotry is the issue.

[sabrina 1]

107. Of course you can. I have managed to discuss issues and even change minds, by stating facts

and by not making bad analogies. That simply distracts from whatever point you are trying to make. If you didn't want to discuss the merits of the case why did you actually do so? You DID do that by comparing Manning to Thomas. That led me to believe you WERE discussing the merits of the case and were presenting Manning as a man who had no morals or principles. That question lies at the heart of this case. Manning's REASONS for what he did. So to compare him to a person with no morals was discussing the merits of the case. Why not just stick to whatever it was you wanted to say?

Eg, I do not expect people of any group, ethnic, gender, or any other kind of group to be monolithic about any issue. The OP asked a question based on a statement issued by one group who do not represent all of the GLBT community. It would have been very simple to point that out to her. That this group is not representative of the entire GLBT community. Manning has been supported by many in the GLBT community. He has been supported by people from across the board, except by the Far Right. THEY however have Bush to protect since most of what Manning revealed was about the Bush era war crimes.

Which is why I am always puzzled by some Democrats who do not support Manning, and who, I know would have been fully supportive of him had his revelations come out before Bush left office.

[stevenleser]

110. To do so is a kick in the face to the discriminated against group. I won't do it.

If I was LGBT I would consider it within my prerogative to engage with someone who is being discriminatory towards LGBT this way.

I'm not, so I wont.

[sabrina 1]

150. Oh please, that is so childish. How do you change minds if you refuse

to stand up for discriminated groups? If everyone stomped their feet, curled up and acted like a child instead of informing people, discriminated groups would never make any progress. The most effective way to end discrimination is to end ignorance. And that can only be accomplished by people acting like adults and taking the time and trouble to educate people.

Not everyone who is ignorant is a bad person, so stop with the insinuations. I personally would not want you on my side when confronted with ignorance. Ignorance can end in a matter of minutes if someone approaches it with intelligence and facts and it has, over and over again. Hatred is a different story. You appear to be confusing the two.

[stevenleser]

169. That is very easy for you to say. You are not part of the group being stereotyped here.

It's clear to me from the LGBT names I recognize as responding to this OP that they do not appreciate it at all.

[Purplehazed]

148. What's puzzling?

I swore an oath similar to Manning's to do the job that I do. If I were to publish certain things that I come across in the course of my job, I would violate that oath, federal law and would be prosecuted. It's pretty simple. Now if I witnessed wrong doing and was told to STFU by the local command group, I have a range of options through different government agencies to make a report to. If that still wasn't satisfactory, I could find a sympathetic member of congress to communicate with.

The oath that Manning voluntarily swore, was much more severe than mine. He knew the consequences. He seems to be a smart person that could have figured out who he could have reported his allegations/evidence to, without breaking his Oath. He is likely smart enough to have done this anonymously.

Manning instead gave information to a foreign national. Case closed. All the details and reasons don't matter.

[AnalystInParadise]

168. Please

point out the war crimes he witnessed and exposed. He has no conscience, that is why it was so easy for him to betray his battle buddies, his oath and his morality.

[HiPointDem]

46. thomas and cain aren't dissidents, they're agents of state power. stupid analogy.

[jeff47]

86. And what does that have to do with their skin color?

And what does Manning's sexuality have to do with his actions?

Both are irrelevant.

[SidDithers]

56. Good analogy...

Sid

[Luminous Animal]

119. Yes, indeed. A man who supported John Kerry. A man who protested against

Don't Ask Don't Tell at great personal risk totally should be equated with Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain.

[ucrdem]

134. Manning supporting Kerry sounds unlikely.

Post links if you have 'em but I can't find anything in Google. My impression is that to the degree that he was political he was basically a libertarian. The single largest contributor to Ron Paul's 2012 presidential campaign was the US Army, i.e. individuals within it, per OpenSecrets, http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contriball.php , and that would rule out support for Kerry.

[Luminous Animal]

200. He was a member of the Stonewall Democrats which supported Kerry enthusiastically.

Your logic is deeply flawed. Just because other soldiers contributed to Ron Paul does not mean that Manning is or was a libertarian.

Manning attended a Democratic fundraiser in 2009 and received an autographed picture with Gavin Newsom.




From his chat logs with Zachary Antolak aka Zinnia Jones in early 2009 he said that he was planning to attend a democratic organization event.

(8:38:09 PM) bradass87: im attending two major events… a gavin newsom gubernatorial fundraiser, then a stonewall democrats capitol champions thingie

From the chat logs he also claims that "richard feynman, carl sagan, harvey milk..." were his idols. All Democrats.

http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/the-importance-of-the-recently-released-manning-jonesand-chat-logs

Here is image featured on the 2009 Stonewall Democrats Champions event:


http://www.stonewalldemocrats.org/2009capitolchampions

[KoKo]

202. Recommend...Thanks for the Photos and Links about Manning and Stonewall Dems

which seems to me to be why we Dems and GLBT should be out there supporting him!

That was my question. I should have posted the links earlier but posted them early in the thread thinking the GLBT'ers here on DU would already be aware of the controversy. Unfortunately the post became about "Me" and some DU'ers "opinion of me and my posts" rather than on the issue of Bradley Manning and his inhumane treatment through all of this.

I thought the GLBT Community being so aware of Human Rights Violations and suffered through what they have would have been more on the forefront of defending Bradley's treatment whether they agree with what he did in disclosing documents or not. But, the issue got diffused and it's partly my fault for not linking the Corrente piece and video in the Editorial but only in the thread.

[Luminous Animal]

206. Thanks for including the video in your OP. I was at that protest, though blocked from attending

the meeting, as were most of those who showed up - including the press.

[KoKo]

209. Thanks...I had it posted at #13 in the thread but, no one read it even though the

video was there. But, I should have linked it in my original post so the thread didn't go off track as it did.

So you were there. Are you concerned about this? I just can't understand why Bradley Manning isn't being supported by the backing of powerful forces in the GBLT community...when Democracy Now and Amy Goodman plus some other Left Sites that don't get much play here are supporting him on Human Rights Issues.

Whether some feel Manning is "guilty before charged" or others feel "he was a traitor to the Military" it does seem that he was treated so aggregiously that Human Rights Violations (plus Obama declaring him Guilty before trial) would be a cause that since he's Gay he could at least get some big support from those in his community who know what persecution is.

My post was badly positioned...but, as I said, I thought the DU/Dem Community was already aware of what had been done to him.

Whatever...I appreciate your reply.

[ucrdem]

207. I don't see any evidence that Manning "supported John Kerry"

and that's what you claim in post #119 above.

[Luminous Animal]

208. He a Democrat and a member of an organization that ENTHUSIASTICALLY supported Kerry.

Sheesh. Do you honestly think that members of Democratic clubs privately support Republicans or Libertarians? Do you honestly think that one becomes a member of a Democratic club, attends their events to honor Democrats, attends fundraisers for Democratic candidates, and then privately supports the opposition?

Utterly ridiculous.

[KoKo]

210. Agree...shocking that a Dem Poster would call Manning a "Libertarian" without

any background or evidence...and that your very post verifies he is a Democrat puts the lie to all of it!

[ucrdem]

213. Manning says in a 2/32/2009 chat that he is NOT a Democrat:

(8:14:23 PM) bradass87: ah thank you... im not exactly a democrat btw...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/07/bradley-manning-chat-logs-zach-antolak

So this entire conversation is, as I suspected, inane. If you don't mind I'm going to hide this thread now, goodbye.

[dballance]

32. I believe thinking reasonable people should stop replying to KoKo on this thread.

It appears obvious to me that KoKo is just throwing up arguments to stir the crap and not to have a productive and real conversation.

Many people, myself included, have given KoKo good reasons and answers to the OP. The assertion that the GLBT community doesn't support Manning has also been dispelled in the replies to the OP.

This is no longer a productive thread. Let KoKo go find another punch bowl to poop in.

[KoKo]

34. Post #13 has not had an answer.

[dballance]

36. So You're Ignoring post #27 that responds to #13?

Who exactly appointed the SF Pride committee as "THE GLBT" community?

[Nye Bevan]

43. The perils of keeping people on your Ignore list (nt)

[stevenleser]

39. Bottom line: Your OP is borderline discriminatory as it proposes the LGBT community is monolithic

Or that it SHOULD be monolithic. You are not doing any favors to any discriminated against group if you approach them with sweeping generalizations.

[KoKo]

41. Steve...what is Your Feeling about Bradley Manning?

Do you think he's getting proper treatment? Do you feel he was a whistle blower or Clarence Thomas?

[Nye Bevan]

45. Oh please. Stop being deliberately obtuse with the "Clarence Thomas" nonsense.

You're not impressing anyone.

[HiPointDem]

47. it's steve who brought up clarence thomas.

[Nye Bevan]

49. Just. Stop. (nt)

[HiPointDem]

58. stop what? steve brought up thomas. fact.

[jeff47]

103. What does Thomas's skin color have to do with his crappy decisions?

Does his skin color entitle him to unlimited support from African-Americans? No?

Then why does being gay entitle Manning to unlimited support from LGBTs?

[HiPointDem]

113. steven brought him up. that is my only comment beyond the comment, to steve, that it's a

bad analogy.

thomas serves state power.

agents of state power don't need 'support' from the public; they get their support from the state and those who control the state.

manning is a dissident.

[jeff47]

117. So you completely missed the analogy.

Doesn't matter who they serve.

The color of Thomas's skin doesn't entitle him to unlimited African-American support.
Manning's sexuality doesn't entitle him to unlimited LGBT support.

That's kinda the point. Manning being gay is irrelevant. And that's a good thing - his sexuality is not the reason he is being tried.

[HiPointDem]

125. there is no analogy.

[jeff47]

128. Only because you lionize one and demonize the other

and are unable to think past that.

[stevenleser]

66. I cannot have this conversation under this OP. nt

[Canuckistanian]

51. +1

I and a lot of others were dismayed by SF Prides' declaration of Manning as a disgrace to the LGBT community. Since when has ANY LGBT community been against free speech and the ability to protest one's government? Seems to me that's what the LGBT community has been fighting for it's whole existence.

I immediately thought there was something else at work here.

[Pelican]

61. You think that the LGBT movement...

... has been fighting for the right to distribute classified information with zero consequences?

[maddezmom]

53. +1000

Really weird thread.

[liberal_at_heart]

55. I agree.

[SidDithers]

57. +1...nt

Sid

[Behind the Aegis]

60. And once again, you demostrate why you are a TRUE ally to our cause...

...and others are just posers!

[stevenleser]

176. Thank you BTA

[cordelia]

63. Thank you.

[Yo_Mama]

82. Or why even GLBT

After all, his situation has nothing to do with his sexual orientation.

After all, we are all born with a set of characteristics, many of which don't have any relevance to most of our life.

If he were up on charges of having sex with another guy, GLBT groups would support him.

[TorchTheWitch]

157. I find it more than borderline

It's flat out discriminatory. Imagining that the entire LGBT community of the nation all think the same and know all the same information (my gay brother and all the people in the LGBT community I know have more than likely never even heard of Manning) just because they're part of the LGBT community and be somehow required to support what he did just because he's gay is about as discriminatory as it gets. As if everyone in any discriminated against community all think alike about everything and all have the same knowledge. I'm really offended by this ridiculous and discriminatory assumption, and I'm straight.

[stevenleser]

172. You're right, but as I said above in #67, I don't think the OP really understands that.

Many of OP's previous OPs feature pronounced naivete and perhaps lack of a complete understanding of the complexities of various situations and concepts. I am trying to say this as nice as I can.

[NYC Liberal]

215. Exactly. I agree totally.

[LeftyMom]

59. I believe the racist penguins are behind it.

[Pelican]

71. Fun fact of the morning...

Many strange and disturbing things come up when you google "racist penguin"

[Zorra]

69. Who among the LGBT community are you referring to, specifically? Anyone here?

I support him.

[KoKo]

191. I knew you would...

It was what happened with SanFrancisco Gay Pride. I had the video and link to post here on the thread but folks didn't see it. I've now posted it in the OP itself. I figured folks were familiar with what happened with the "San Francisco Gay Pride Movement" and Bradley Manning, but apparently not. I should have posted videos and links in the OP itself.

[Zorra]

242. Oh, yeah, I get it now. Duh.

That was awful. Actually, I didn't pay much attention to it because it did not surprise me and I was very busy with life at the time.

Conservative LGBT authoritarian assholes are no different than any other conservative authoritarian assholes when it comes to money and kissing establishment ass, and there are conservative authoritarian moles undermining equality and justice everywhere they smell money.

It's a fact of life that republicans/conservatives of any stripe will sell out their mothers for a buck, and they are not afraid to buy into the game for a shot at profit making influence for themselves.

Fuck Lisa Williams, and fuck Log Cabin Republicans, they are an embarrassing traitorous disgrace to our LGBT family in much the same way the same way that Third Way pseudo-Democrats are a disgrace to the Democratic party.

[hrmjustin]

74. Many of us do, but it is not a LGBT issue so our organiztions probably don't want to touch it.

Besides just because he is gay does not mean he will get our support.

[Yo_Mama]

77. It is not a GLBT issue

I assume that individuals support or not depending on how they see it.

[jeff47]

88. How did being gay force Manning to leak classified information? (nt)

[boilerbabe]

89. LGBTers that are Obama loyalists and/or log cabin types don't like him. the one who bad mouthed him

and pulled him from being grand marshall ( daniel ellsberg was going to stand in for him) for san franscico pride worked on the Obama campaign and those types don't like whistle blowers at the moment for obvious reasons. many of the 1 % Human Rights campaign snob type gays don't like him but many other LGBTers support him and are pissed that mess with SF pride happened. Gay folk don't all have the same opinions just like any other group.

[HiPointDem]

124. also the middle east war hawks don't like him.

[JI7]

129. "Human Rights campaign snob type gays "

wtf

[La Lioness Priyanka]

108. wasn't he also white? male? a soldier? a liberal?

why are the other groups not as responsible for supporting him as the lgbt community is?

[JI7]

120. should planned parenthood, emily's list etc support Bachmann, Palin , etc ?

[Nye Bevan]

136. Uh-oh. Cue "How dare you equate Manning to Palin"? (nt)

[randome]

224. I'm not entirely certain if cross-species support should be encouraged.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[William769]

143. Thats a mighty big brush your painting with and it's not dipped in rainbow paint.

It is tainted though. Just saying.

[sibelian]

145. I think you're labouring under the misapprehension that homosexuality is a political position.

It isn't.

[Capt. Obvious]

170. For the same reason

the GLBT community hasn't made a comment on my choice of leftover, cold pizza for lunch today.

[Sissyk]

171. 170 replies

and 0 recs. Does that answer your question?

[mattclearing]

174. Well said.

[RKP5637]

177. It's not a GLBT issue IMO. n/t

[Marrah_G]

180. Your OP is really offensive

Just because a person is GBLT doesn't mean they have to support every other person who is GBLT.

[Behind the Aegis]

234. And the "follow ups" are even worse.

Not only is your statement true, it is also true that this not a GLBT issue, and if it were, it still might not gain popular/strong support among our people.

Once again, we are being told what we should and shouldn't be concerned with in regards to our "preference". (You saw that didn't you?!)

[KamaAina]

184. The GLBT community, by and large, does support Bradley Manning

the leadership of the SF Pride Parade, composed of mainstream HRC types, does not.

edit: Even the M$M out here has picked up on this brewing controversy.

[KoKo]

189. Thanks, KamaAina,

It's the leadership of the SF Pride Parade that answers my question. They are very influencial but don't necessarily control the "Gay Pride" movement as to support for fellow GLBT who have been mistreated as Bradley Manning was and still is. Bradley Manning's "Human Rights" were violated when he was held in cagelike circumstances, forced to be nude and other indignities. I felt that GLBT Community wasn't fully speaking out and only a few seemed to care.

Thanks for that clarification.

"..the leadership of the SF Pride Parade, composed of mainstream HRC types, does not."

[MicaelS]

185. So any GLBT person who is accused of any crime..

Should automatically be "supported" by the GLBT Community, no matter the evidence against them?

[KoKo]

190. Mannings "Human Rights and Dignity" have been violated. He is gay and

that is an issue that has been front and center in the GLBT movement. Or, so I thought.

[randome]

195. Is he gay? I thought he had 'gender personality disorder' and wasn't even sure himself.

Regardless, he should be supported to help him past any emotional turbulence but that's not the same thing as supporting someone who is accused of a crime.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[KamaAina]

187. I was unaware that Manning was gay until just now

and I'm a news junkie in the Bay Area.

Interesting how his outing has been so much quieter than that of Jason Collins or Brittney Griner. Hmmmm...

[FreeState]

211. He's actually transgender

There has been very little in the MSP about him belonging to the LGBT community.

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/12/19/lawyers-say-bradley-manning-struggled-with-gender-identity-disorder/

Attorneys representing Pfc. Bradley Manning, a 24-year-old Army private previously identified as gay, startled observers at a pre-court martial hearing on Saturday by saying allegations that Manning leaked classified U.S. intelligence information could be linked to a personal struggle over his gender identity.
Revelations that Manning created a Facebook page under the name Breanna Manning, that he dressed in women’s clothes, and he told an Army supervisor that he was suffering from gender identity disorder surfaced on the second day of a military proceeding known as an Article 32 hearing at Fort Meade, Md.

An Army witness testified at the hearing that investigators learned that Manning kept a collection of articles about gender identity disorder in his personal living quarters.

Authorities have accused Manning of orchestrating the largest intelligence leak in U.S. history while he worked as an Army intelligence analyst in Iraq. He was arrested in May 2010 on 22 counts of violating military codes pertaining to intelligence. He faces a possible sentence of death or life in prison if convicted on all charges.

[KoKo]

220. He's very young ...figuring out where he finds himself in GLBT Community is

a journey he is yet discovering. But, he's not said he is Heterosexual for sure.

He's a sensitive young man who saw something very wrong and did what he could to expose the wrong. I think we ALL should support him...but, particularly those who stand for Human Rights which I think the GLBT Community has been on the forefront of doing for quite awhile now. And, there is a lot of money that can be brought to Mannings Cause...from that community along with other Civil Liberties Advocates who could pool resources together.

[whistler162]

218. Why didn't the straight community support

Aldrich Ames or the Walkers?

[jazzimov]

225. Maybe because it has nothing to do with him being GAY?

[KoKo]

228. See my post just above, #220.

[DeSwiss]

233. He should be Grand Marshall and FREE. :-/ - K&R n/t

[Smarmie Doofus]

240. Not sure of the premise of OP: LGBTs don't support Bradley. Largely we do. But....

... it's always been painfully obvious that his sexual orientation touches something in the reptilian brain ( of many) of his detractors.

Hence the over-the-top pre-trial punishment ( i.e. torture), harassment while on active duty, the spleen-venting tone of invective of the internet troops, etc.


Some of whom ( i.e. those in the last category) seem to be ... well, if not recruited, exactly... unlikely to be here for the "long-haul".

Curiously, a lot of folks here ( i.e. in this thread) seem to have sign-ed up at or around April 19th of this year. And they have one compelling interest: Bradley Manning.

I'll leave that part it "to Dr. Freud along with the rest of it." ( 5 extra points if you can id that quote)

Not quite sure if there's any significance to that date. Hitler's birthday, maybe?

[LuvNewcastle]

244. I've known a lot of gay conservatives.

Gay people tend to be more liberal on social issues than straight people, but other than that, we are just as diverse as heterosexuals. There are gay people of all races, cultures, and religions and we certainly have a wide variety of political opinions.

I don't think most gay people even know who Bradley Manning is. I support him. I consider him a hero; he did a very brave thing. But when prominent gay people speak about issues involving gay rights, they're talking about subjects that affect all our lives. They have some moral authority to talk about things that we all have to deal with. They don't, however, have anything but they're own opinion when taking sides on other issues that have nothing to do with gay rights. If certain activists intend to stay influential in the gay rights cause, they can't pretend to speak for all of us on issues where there's a lot of differing opinions.

Another thing, I cringe a little bit when I hear the term "gay community." It sounds like we have a lodge and vote on things together. There really isn't a gay community any more than there's a straight community. We are just as diverse as heterosexuals and we don't all know each other. We certainly don't all like each other.

[randome]

247. No secret handshakes or coded plans to corrupt the world? Huh. How disappointing.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Marrah_G]

248. Not corrupt.....just rule :)

[adric mutelovic]

277. the GLBT community does not have to agree on every issue

Some support Manning, some don't.