Bradley Manning to speak in public for first time in two years US Army private Bradley Manning will speak publicly for the first time in two years, when he's called as a witness in a pre-trial hearing later today. Manning, who is accused of "aiding the enemy" by handing over army secrets to Wikileaks, is expected to be called to testify at Fort Meade army base in a hearing that's expected …
This post has been deleted by its author
He leaked whatever he could. He therefore endangered allied personnel.
They should shoot him to send a clear message to would be traitors.
What if your life was put at risk by someone like Manning?
He has not got the guts to reclaim his honour. A squad of six riflemen could retrieve a scrap of it, at dawn.
I haven't seen any hard proof that the information that was leaked has directly or indirectly endangered allied personnel, except his own which has widely been reported on.
Not saying what he did was justified, just the argument you use is right up there with 1 download == 1 lost sale.
1 download == 1 lost sale.
Straw man rubbish.
Nope nothing like that at all.
Al Queada will study all the info relevant to them, which mountain routes are known/noticed by the allies,
what tactics they think work and those that don't. It handing the enemy info they could not have otherwise got.
He deserves to be shot
No, it's exactly like that because it's just as idiotic an argument. Have you actually studied at the information released and what he had access to?
I'm sure they get lots more secret information from the people working directly with the forces, then again i could be wrong... maybe it goes down like this "shit guys, we need to know where to plant a roadside bomb..." "Sigh... ...alright, I'll hit up Wikileaks again"
Again, no proof has ever been shown that what was leaked has ever caused one causality.
Really it does not matter what he leaked. The army classifies information at various secrecy levels for a reason, and anyone leaking it is by definition a traitor and aiding the enemy. In WWII they guy would have been shot already! If the US army wants to keep credibility (and secrets) it has to shoot manning.
@AC 16:16. Does the US Government shoot spies for 'the other side' that have been captured?
I think not. So why the ire for Manning?
Recently, in the United States, from public records:
2010: Dongfan Chung. Sentenced to 15 years for passing secrets to China.
2010: Anna Chapman and 9 friends. Arrested, then deported in a swap with Russia for 4 US agents.
2010: Kendall Myers, and wife. Sentenced to life in prison for spying for Cuba.
2010: Noshir Gowadia. Spying for China.
2010: Pedro Leonardo Mascheroni, and wife. Spying for Venezuela.
2010: Glenn Shriver. Spying for China. 4 years imprisonment.
2010: Minkyu Martin.
2011: Mohamad Anas Haitham Soueid. Spying for Syria. Sentenced in 2012 to 18 months.
2011: Kexue Huang. Passing on information about pesticides to China, so probably does not count.
2012: Alexander Fishenko. Indicted along with 11 others, as an agent for the Russian military.
None of the above have been shot.
"In WWII they guy would have been shot already!"
No he wouldn't. Read it:
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_the_United_States_military
Murder and rape get you shot or hung (or rather: used to). Nobody has been executed for aiding the enemy.
"Really it does not matter what he leaked. [...] anyone leaking [Information] is by definition a traitor and aiding the enemy."
Even if the information is no use to the enemy? So leaking information that in no way...let me think of a word...aids the enemy, is by definition aiding the enemy?
That doesn't seem to follow the normal rules of logic.
".....Even if the information is no use to the enemy?...." It is not the possible value of a secret to the enemy if leaked but the fact that something designated as a secret, for which an oath has been sworn to protect, has been leaked. The "aiding an enemy" is an add-on.
For example, if Manning had leaked the combination for the safe in the Whitehouse Oval Office, this would be seen as a big secret, despite it being of little value to AQ or the Taleban as they are unlikely to get into the Oval Office any time soon. But, leaking the times at which the canteens in Bahgram is serving lunch every day, whilst seeming to be a minor secret to you, could be of great value to AQ and/or the Taleban if they are planning an attack on Bahgram. Leaking either secret is an equal crime, the additional charge of "aiding" with the latter is the cherry added on top.
This post has been deleted by its author
Franchises of what? Islam?
Thats about the only thing that links any of these so-called terrorist organisations, and even that could be considered a dubious and tenuous link. The term "Al Qaeda" (spelling may vary from one news source to another: clue) is a codename created by the CIA during the 1970's (When they were training the Taleban to fight the Commies) that refers to the database they kept of "international terrorist suspects". The IRA, for instance, were listed on the same Database (making them "Al Qaeda" in modern US intelligence parlance). Bin Laden never referred to himself or his organisation as "Al Qaeda", but as "The Muslim Brotherhood". Al Qaeda translates as (depending on dialect chosen) either "The Gentlemen" or "The Base" (Often used to mean Database).
There appears to be no "hierarchy" of terrorists, (for example, there is no provable link between 9/11 and the 7/7 attacks) but the Taleban is very influential in such circles as are various Saudi houses; the Bin Laden family for example. But they're allies and own quite a lot of US businesses, so we'd best not say that too loudly eh?
Makes the oft-repeated phrase "....group linked to Al Qaeda" kinda nonsensical really.
There are a lot of ignorant idiots commenting today.
No he shouldn't be shot!
But he shouldn't of disclosed any info.
I have had to sign the secrets act on more than one occasion, I can't tell you why but I can tell you that I take it very seriously even though I disagree with a few things that I have had to sign it for.
*So I now do what the government does, and leave some documents on the train.
Or a YouTube comments page?
My goodness... it brings out the nasties... Bring back the cat! Hanging's too good for 'em! Ship 'em all to an island somewhere! Yes, you're right: I grew up in the 1950s.
Seems to me that, assuming the facts fit the appearances (nobody has been tried yet) that this guy has committed a criminal act for which he can truly expect the old 15-ton weight on his head, but baying for blood is about as civilised as the US govt's treatment of the guy up to this point. Cruel and unusual? Barely civilised.
My bit of baying, although not for blood, is that the other guy should be on trial with him, no posing as a celebrity seeker of political asylum
This is a matter of military discipline. If you are a civvy you might not understand, but military discipline is particularly firm and often harsh, particularly where secrets are concerned. This is not a civilian matter where you can cry and talk about your harsh childhood; I have already posted up material showing that the Taliban have said that they will be having a word with those informants whose GPS data have been revealed. It is not up to Manning, you or anyone not in the strategic/military loop to decide on what secrets can be revealed, by definition. Practically all of the 'no harm done' waffle is mere hot air and I suspect that much if not all of it comes from spotty delinquents in their bedrooms.
"This is a matter of military discipline. If you are a civvy you might not understand, but military discipline is particularly firm and often harsh, particularly where secrets are concerned."
It is. And any military confinement is unpleasant and harsh. I expect his interrogation did involve sleep deprivation, stress positions and general misery. That comes with the turf.
But then they found out what they wanted to, and he went through another 800 days of severe punishment WITHOUT TRAIL OR COURT MARTIAL.
I expect military justice to be swift and harsh. This was harsh, but not swift and it was carried out without bothering to find him guilty.
Read what I said, not what you like to think I said.
But, to answer what you said anyway: bollocks, sir. Ultimately this is a very serious crime, but even a criminal has rights, even a spy. The USA is right to prosecute the man, whether in a civil or a military court. For those who have a little difficulty with reading, I said prosecute, not persecute.
So, 900 days already, that would get him 9,000 days off his sentence. If he goes down for the fifty year sentence expected that lops it almost in half, so leaving about twenty-five years to serve. Not sure if you get time off for good behaviour in Levenworth so he could still be aged fifty when released, and that will probably be with a dishonourable discharge. So even then his prospects are pretty poor for starting a new career. Maybe A$$nut will give him a job as his condom shopper in Ecuador.
Manning wants to belong, just not in the military, and wants people to tell him he is smart and valued. His problem was he could not modify his actions and outlook to what the military norm required, despite thousands of other gays not finding this a problem. A$$nut is different, he just wants everyone to say he is God.
Oh, whilst you're bleating about Manning, did you see the item on the Beeb where Manning admitted he made a noose whilst in detention in Kuwait, prior to being put on suicide watch? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20563539. Looks like you'll have to withdraw all that squealing you and your like-minded chums posted about the suicide watch being "unjustified torture".
"he just wants everyone to say he is God."
And you're the first dude to say it.
"Manning admitted he made a noose whilst in detention in Kuwait,"
So sometimes 'a stitch in time doesn't save nine.' I can't believe you're faulting him for that.
"squealing you and your like-minded chums posted about the suicide watch being "unjustified torture"."
Thanks for pointing out to us that it was "JUSTIFIED TORTURE".
"....And you're the first dude to say it....." Sorry, but A$$nut's narcicism and god-complex have been commented on plenty by many others, just obviously not on your steeples' approved reading list.
".... I can't believe you're faulting him for that....." I'm not faulting him, it's just a indicator of his mental condition. I am faulting you and the other Faithful that insisted the suicide watch was not .
"......TORTURE...." What, they made him sleep naked for a week because he'd already made a noose once? I think it's time you and your fellow numpties went and read about real torture:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Houses-of-torture-found-in-Fallujah-Bloody-2634289.php
http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/03/syria-torture-centers-revealed
http://www.hrw.org/node/82359/section/4
This post has been deleted by its author
So by your standard, even if your government commits atrocious acts then you should always support them? Like if you grew up in, oh say, Afghanistan, and your government was harboring trrists and stoning women then you should always always support the government for fear of being called a 'traitor' by someone like yourself?
I thought Barack Obama was all about open government and transparency, as well as health care for every American. I see less and less of this every day.
Manning was a whistleblower not a traitor and should be honoured accordingly.
Dictionary.com:
1. a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.
2. a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.
He most certainly did not betray his country, but shone the light on power hungry monsters who love secrets and the dark places in the human soul.
He was not working for the government, he was working for the military - different set of rules, different contract and it has an oath about secrecy even before you get to his extra commitments for the specific role he had. This wasn't just some guy whistle-blowing on something like possible errors in government stats being hidden, this was a guy that recklessly leaked secret material that could endanger people, to a guy he knew would then distribute it to anyone willing to pay.
"No pretty much stright option 1, trust was given and he abused it. To make it worse he volinteered ...
Now through his own actions he is right in the shite."
A bit like Sgt. Nightingale. Except the media is on his side for some derranged reason, and instead of wanting the highly trained killer with brain injuries and an illegal firearm to be throw in the clink for years, people seem to want him let off. Crazy world!
"(with some pretty good extenuating circumstances it has to be said)."
Really? What were they, to your mind?
Because I read the court martial documents too, and to me the media painted his tale in the most flattering light, while failing to mention that he'd illegally owned the firearm for a couple of years and stole 400 rounds of assorted ammunition from the Army to boot!
The 2 years it spent in secure lockup (untouched), he did not pack it in the first place, not even touching on the medical issues.
Not touching on the ammo charge only the pistol one. the main differnces between him and manning is one took resposiblity for the charges one tried to deny it all.
Also you will note I am not calling for the charges to be dissmissed against him, as per my first post in this thread, military regs are stricter and it was court martial. I don't thnk there are any pararells between him and manning apart from they both had/are going through court martials
"Not touching on the ammo charge only the pistol one. the main differnces between him and manning is one took resposiblity for the charges one tried to deny it all."
Not really. He's not taken responsibility inthat he's trying the whole "I didn't know" line, coupled with now claiming that he was essentially blackmailed into pleading guilty.
"I don't thnk there are any pararells between him and manning apart from they both had/are going through court martials"
I think it's valid in that both cases are 'trial by press'. Except in one case Manning is being slated, whereas Nightingale is being labelled as a hero.
I knew someone who stole ammo from the army, and it was found out when his 11 year old took some live .762 to school. Eventually a techer saw it who actually knew what it was. He fessed up, gave back a load of ammo (including a practise 84mm round???why nick that???). The MP's searched his house, he was booted out and that was it. No court martial nothing. They even ignored his semi legal long shot .22 fully auto AR15 thing, and his shotguns, and his trip wire shotgun booby traps. He was a nutter though and I was glad he was booted out of the army. He sometimes used to have live ammo on him on excersise (like in aldershot) where everyone else was using blanks "in case of real trouble, like the red army faction when they killed some yanks". But sgt nighting-gale, I think they have ben far too harsh there......
They may have thought the AR15 long shot conversion was not fully auto, but this guy was an armourer and had converted it. I dont think the switch had a marked auto position, but it did fire auto. I mean even I could convert an FN rifle (SLR) to fully auto by placing a matchstick under the trip sear...its not rocket science.
Actually though it was funny when someone once forgot he had put his SLR on auto with the matchstick trick, went onto a 300m range, very carefully took aim, gently squeezed the trigger on the ETR target which had just popped up, and instead of a single shot and waiting for the target to drop, he got a BA-BA-BA-BA-BAM the thing surprising him leaping up against his shoulder and wild shots into the air!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
