WikiLeaks: Manning guilty verdict sets 'dangerous precedent'

Chief WikiLeaker Julian Assange has said that the guilty verdicts in the case against US Army Private Bradley Manning have set a dangerous precedent. Manning, who handed hundreds of thousands of classified documents over to WikiLeaks in what he claims was an attempt to prompt debate about US military and foreign policy, was …

[Velv]

Manning is not by any stretch of the imagination, a "whistleblower". He gave massive volumes of documents about a wide range of unrelated subjects to an unauthorised third party. He leaked confidential information for which he deserved to be prosecuted.

I agree he did not aid the enemy. If it was blowing the whistle then it would have been contained to a single subject (or small number of subjects). But he literally did a dump of everything hoping it would be of interest to the public (and not necessarily in the public interest which is a different thing for which whislteblowing is permitted).

We'll wait and see what the sentence is before deciding he's been treated harshly. Whistleblowers should be protected - he is not a whistleblower!

[AbelSoul]

Not a whistleblower

"Manning is not by any stretch of the imagination, a "whistleblower" ... If it was blowing the whistle then it would have been contained to a single subject.... he is not a whistleblower!"

Not by any stretch of the imagination? Utter horsefeathers.

In fact it takes a somewhat twisted stretch of the imagination reach such a ridiculous conclusion.

thefreedictionary.com

"Whistleblower - One who reveals wrongdoing within an organization to the public"

Wikipedia:

"Whistleblower - a person who exposes misconduct, alleged dishonest or illegal activity occurring in an organisation."

UK Gov:

Whistleblowing is when a worker reports suspected wrongdoing at work. Officially this is called 'making a disclosure in the public interest'.

Whichever definition you choose, Manning is a whistleblower.

Unless of course you consider that none of the information he released indicated any wrongdoing by the instruments of the US government.

Then again, perhaps you think it's OK to go around torturing suspects, slaughtering civilians, etc. I have no idea.

> "Whistleblowers should be protected"

The only part of your post I can agree with.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Not a whistleblower

Nope I can't see how the 'Whistleblower' applies even Manning himself pleaded guilty to a number of offences.

When asked why he admitted his action were wrong Manning said "Your Honor, regardless of my opinion or my assessment of documents such as these, it's beyond my pay grade – it's not my authority to make these decisions about releasing confidential files."

On the basis that he himself admits he wouldn't know if he was exposing "misconduct, alleged dishonest or illegal activity occurring in an organisation." how can he be a Whistleblower?

Far from being motivated by public interest his (self confessed) illegal actions appear to have been largely motivated by conspicuous self promotion albeit as it turns out not in a good way.

I would thought a better argument for his defense might be diminished responsibility on account of his Narcissism?

[AbelSoul]

Re: Not a whistleblower

> "On the basis that he himself admits he wouldn't know if he was exposing "misconduct, alleged dishonest or illegal activity occurring in an organisation." how can he be a Whistleblower?"

Ehm, perhaps because he blew the f*cking whistle?

Go and look up a definition of Whistleblower (You don't even have to go far - there are three already on this thread).

Intent has the square root of hee-haw to do with it.

[Annihilator]

Re: Not a whistleblower

"Intent has the square root of hee-haw to do with it"

Except it kind of does (which is why I'm asking the question further up) - an unintended benefit of a criminal act doesn't usually negage the crime.

If his intent was to whistleblow, then fair enough he should be protected as such (then there's the question of why the extraneous info?) but if he just planned to leak classified info "just because" and got lucky, then why should he benefit from that?

[AbelSoul]

Re: Not a whistleblower

> ".. an unintended benefit of a criminal act doesn't usually negage the crime."

I never said it does.

All I'm saying is that the whistle was blown. And it was blown by Bradley Manning.

By most common definitions, that makes him a whistleblower, regardless of whether he meant it or not and certainly not precluded "by any stretch of imagination," as the OP posited.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Not a whistleblower @AbelSoul

Ehm, perhaps because he blew the f*cking whistle?

Unseasoned statements and profanity not much of an answer.

Go and look up a definition of Whistleblower (You don't even have to go far - there are three already on this thread).

FYI. I cut and pasted the definition of Whistleblower from above.

Manning himself pleaded guilty to a number of charges, it would seem that the public interest (whistle blowing) defense applied to a number of others for which he was found not guilty. That said .....

Intent has the square root of hee-haw to do with it.

I would disagree with this and from my understanding so would US law. It would seem -

Under most US federal whistleblower statutes, in order to be considered a whistleblower, the federal employee must have reason to believe his or her employer has violated some law, rule or regulation; testify or commence a legal proceeding on the legally protected matter; or refuse to violate the law.

He didn't have 'reason to believe', as such he just had access to a load of information which he wanted to trade to his advantage (given this wasn't financial I have assumed this to be reasons of ego), he dumped the whole lot.

He appears to have got lucky in that some of the information arguably might be defined as 'Whistle blowing' so he got off some charges. A whole load of information wasn't whistleblowing and as such he was charged with espionage, theft etc.

[Scorchio!!]

Re: Not a whistleblower

"Intent has the square root of hee-haw to do with it."

Indeed, and thank you for reducing the problem so graphically to a few words; it is the case that a course of conduct, that is to say 'behaviour', is all that is needed, and we have one. Indeed, Manning has confessed, and soon the fat lady will sing of sentences.

[Scorchio!!]

Re: Not a whistleblower

' "Your Honor, regardless of my opinion or my assessment of documents such as these, it's beyond my pay grade – it's not my authority to make these decisions about releasing confidential files." '

Yes, and it is more than slightly egregious that he applies the very rules that disbar him from releasing into the public domain classified materials. That is to say, he is not qualified to decide, but he is going to do so anyhow. WTF? This is a substantial internal axiomatic inconsistency. He would have been better employed cleaning the heads.

As to narcissism, although I haven't seen the new DSM (I don't like cultural relativism and it is a US document, where the ICD is not), I am not aware that narcissism disrupts cognitive functioning to the extent that an individual is no longer fit to make decisions, or not in control of their behaviour. I think it would require a comorbid condition. Psychopathy maybe! I think the bloke is a prick, but then so is ToniBliar, Jack Straw and many others of that ilk. Hmm. That might be a way to get them to the Hague though. :-)

[Annihilator]

This is an interesting point that I was wondering myself as it all boils down to intent.

Did Manning know he was blowing the whistle on some pretty heinous crimes, in which case, why leak the rest of the (largely) irrelevant stuff. Or did he just leak a bunch of stuff that happened to contain the whistleblowing stuff?

Genuine question, not coming down one way or the other!

[AbelSoul]

Whistle-blowery

> "Did Manning know he was blowing the whistle on some pretty heinous crimes, in which case, why leak the rest of the (largely) irrelevant stuff. Or did he just leak a bunch of stuff that happened to contain the whistleblowing stuff?"

He blew the whistle.

He may well have done so unintentionally.

He may well have also leaked a whole bunch of other, non-whistleblowy stuff.

But either way he still blew the whistle.

[InsaneGeek]

Re: Whistle-blowery

So under that definition I could dump every government document (including username, passwords, credit card, social security numbers, etc) completely indiscriminately and but because in the massive bundle there was some stuff that was illegal... it's all good you are a whistleblower. You can dump anything you want but as long as you have some small part that includes something bad everything else you did is simply OK.

[Scorchio!!]

"Did Manning know [...]"

Mens rea ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea ) is about as irrelevant as it is possible to be, and the laws on harassment are a good guide to this; it does not matter what the stalker's state of mind was, or what they claim it was, what counts is that there is a course of conduct such that the 'reasonable man in the Clapham omnibus' would know it to be wrong or not. If the defendant claims mental illness this is of course another matter; the first thing is to put them in a forensic psychiatric ward on a 3 to 6 month assessment package (that'll be a section 37 in the UK; a court order under the MHA). During the course of this assessment a variety of techniques are used, including psychometric tests that are designed to pick up dissimulation. Moreover, after establishing the presence of mental illness that is said to have been influential at the time of an alleged offence, it is necessary to also determine if the type and degree of mental illness was such that the individual was not responsible for their actions, at the time of the offence.

However, I see no sign that a claim of mental illness is being made. Thus it is a matter of behaviour, not mens rea, though the question can be asked 'could he reasonably be said to have known the import of what he did', excluding the claims that he was not aware that there might be negative consequences (in which case, under his very own logic, he should not have released material that might have such consequences), would the "reasonable man in the Clapham omnibus" have understood that there might be negative consequences for innocent people, it being that intelligence work entails known, acting on, using sensitive information that might be useful to an enemy?

If so the leaky bit is just squeaking in the wind. Indeed, it's the sort of desperation that lies behind St Julie saying that he thinks the US will extradite him from Sweden, when in fact this is impossible and, in any case, the Swedes have offered to let the US have first bash at extraditing Julie from their pals in the UK, you know them, the ones who signed a law that makes them bend over when Uncle Sam (aka Uncle Barack Obama for the while) tells them he wants someone in his study rightaways, and no questions asked. Yes Sirreee mister Barack.

[Bakunin]

It's not all black and white

"He leaked confidential information for which he deserved to be prosecuted."

And for revealing war crimes should he be praised? You don't hear much on that one.

"But he literally did a dump of everything hoping it would be of interest to the public"

While there are many documents which in their isolation offer little interest, the collective "dossier" has focused the worlds attention on the illegal and corrupt tactics deployed by his government. (and of course those war crimes) It's only in the unfolding months after the release that the full impact has become apparent. I don't believe he could have cherry picked the correct documents to fully get across the deeply insidious and dark nature of the US foreign policy. [*]

"We'll wait and see what the sentence is before deciding he's been treated harshly. "

He will almost certainly serve longer than the torturers of Abu Ghraib. So if any lesson is learnt, you're better off sexually assaulting and torturing "foreigners" than relieving you own governments war crimes.

[*] While this is prominently about US foreign policy, I very much doubt they're alone in this practice.

[Scorchio!!]

Re: It's not all black and white

"And for revealing war crimes should he be praised?"

Doubtless he did a good many things for which he could be praised. However the point in question is not whether he has been a good boy or not. Rather it is a matter of criminal behaviour.

[The Vociferous Time Waster]

Ecuadorean couch surfer yells 'me me me'

Expect a statement from the lady bothering Ecuadorean couch surfer every time Manning or Snowdon so much as fart. The soap dodging sofa slumberer is looking for any excuse to raise his own profile now that he has realised we don't care about him and don't pity him for running from a rape allegation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Ecuadorean couch surfer yells 'me me me'

@ The Vociferous Time Waster

... not that you're making an ad-hom attack, or trolling or anything ;-)

[Scorchio!!]

Re: Ecuadorean couch surfer yells 'me me me'

"Expect a statement from the lady bothering Ecuadorean couch surfer every time Manning or Snowdon so much as fart. The soap dodging sofa slumberer is looking for any excuse to raise his own profile now that he has realised we don't care about him and don't pity him for running from a rape allegation."

D'you know I have just had an epiphany; Savile went on Saile's travels, during which campaigns he felt free to target the innocent. Julie travels a lot too, and I find myself wondering if he has done so in pursuit of 'lady bothering'.

I'd like to say that I'm trolling, but I'm speculating out loud that the frequently found relationship between a peripatetic existence and criminal behaviour may once again have expressed itself in the current case. Whilst this is of course speculation, and I am not offering my opinions as facts, I would be interested to see if more cases arise, as they often do once the coals are raked as has recently and so often happened.

[Neil B]

No, *not* convicting him would have been the dangerous precedent.

[Ian 62]

Presumed guilty then

"the ability of criminals like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden "

Snowden hasn't even been arrested yet, let alone faced trial or conviction.

Is it appropriate to be calling him a criminal already?

[lglethal]

Re: Presumed guilty then

I would hope that a good defense laywer would now be able to claim that the defendent (Snowden) had been portrayed often enough in the media and even by members of parliament as a criminal to such a degree that any chance of a fair trial has been removed. The outcome of any trial would be prejudiced beyond the ability of a court to decide fairly as to innocence or guilt and so must be abandoned.

However, considering the amount of hysteria in american government and judicial circles on these topics, I some how doubt the requirement of a fair trial is still considered necessary.

[wowfood]

Re: Presumed guilty then

Judges response: "You're right, trial without jury it is. GUILTY!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Presumed guilty then

They are jumping the gun by calling him a criminal until he has been convicted, although since Snowden has always claimed that he has done what he is accused of, there can't really be any doubt of his guilt. Any trial can therefore be entirely fair and very short.

[aawelj]

Re: Presumed guilty then

Why the thumbs down for this? It seems to me to be an accurate assessment.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: aawelj Re: Presumed guilty then

"Why the thumbs down for this?...." Many of the voters on here simply upvote or downvote due to their socio-political beliefs - you may post something that is a demonstrable fact, or even a good argument, but if it conflicts with what they WANT to belief, they will deny the logic and simply downvote. You can spot the pattern by the posts where they cannot refute your point or post an intelligent argument to counter it, but simply hit the downvote as it is easier than thinking for themselves.

[Mike VandeVelde]

Re: aawelj Presumed guilty then

I WANT TO BELIEF

[Miek]

Re: Presumed guilty then

"Why the thumbs down for this? It seems to me to be an accurate assessment." -- Spooks also read this website. For just about every good point made in relation to the Government and the Security Services of both the UK and USA; there will be a solitary down-vote on all the comments that are critical of either.

[Scorchio!!]

Re: Presumed guilty then

" "Why the thumbs down for this? It seems to me to be an accurate assessment." -- Spooks also read this website"

Your evidence for this is? They are hardly likely to leave an audit trail, but amuse me nonetheless, with independent, verifiable evidence.

As to use of the the thumbs down mechanism itself, because it seems to you to be an accurate assessment (because "Spooks also [...]"), this is about as non sequitur and unreasoned as the whole debate, and thus seems to me symptomatic of the whole Julie-Bradley-Edsie luvvie circle.

Hell, the pro Assange luvvie-lobby close their eyes to the damage he has done (remember his callous attitude, in front of journalists, toward the Afghan informants who'd informed on the locations of mines; as informers, they knew, they took the risk), never mind his money grabbing nature for which there is much citable evidence which I have put it up frequently) and previously denied (by Julie supporters) evidence of his conviction on 17 counts (including a count for hacking the computers of the police force that was investigating his illegal activity), and the - at best - mistaken arguments that Julie didn't flee Sweden, that the Big Bad Wolf wants him to go to Sweden so that he can be extradited therefrom (when we unlike Sweden bend over for the US, thank you ToniBliar), and vast hash of other nonsense, including the wildly amusing tendency of pro Julie happy clappers to thumbs down posts indicating clearly that Julie's Swedish attorney had lied in a British court about contact by the Swedish police, it being that they wished to interview Julie prior to charging and arresting him; that it was embarrassingly confirmed by Julie's Scandinavian lawyer, in a British court, that he had indeed been contacted by the Swedish police merely seems to excite the thumbs down activities of some, who are prepared to believe anything that the white haired one says [1], as has happened in the case of demagogues and the charismatic throughout history.

The amazing thing is that Julie support camp were claiming all those months ago that he was not at risk of absconding, and that there was no need for him to be in Brixton prison; ugh, how nathteeee, how Victorian darleeenk. The minute he had a chance he buggered off like a fucking coward into the Ecuadoran embassy, thereby confirming for the second time that he is an absconder, and thus also confirming that the knack of forensic assessments is to anticipate and thus prevent absconding, never mind what the good fairies outside the castle wall are screeching about, like some demented chorus or claque, intent on influence the juridical process.

He also confirmed, in my mind at least, that he was running from something other than that which he publicly claimed. Thus far the signs are that Julie is unlikely to leave the UK unless he is on a flight to Sweden. After being prosecuted for breaking his bail bond.

[1] Indeed it is only recently that people have been speaking discussing the effects of injudicious debates on matters that are sub judice; where the alleged victims of Julie's alleged wrongful sexual behaviour were concerned, anything goes, including making them out to be CIA agents, tarts, scrubbers, sluts [...]. Selective views on the matter of sub judice, never mind mixing up jurisdictions.

[Miek]

Re: Presumed guilty then

"However, considering the amount of hysteria in american government and judicial circles on these topics, I some how doubt the requirement of a fair trial is still considered necessary." -- How do you know that he's a criminal? 'cause he looks like one! Okay, we may have done the nose.

[Scorchio!!]

Re: Presumed guilty then

Parliament has fuck all to do with Snowden, his case and the USA, but continue hoping and thus to demonstrate that you do not understand issues of secrecy, the national security of other nation states and the separate nature of different jurisdictions.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Presumed guilty then

More confounding is the lack of ability to see what the actions of the government and military are doing to harm national security, actions that are far more dangerous than a few leaked memos about which diplomat spends too long in the red light district, or which one is grumpy on a monday.

Equating whistle blowers with criminals is however par for the course for those who are looking at information leaks and suggesting they are worse than state sponsored assassinations in other countries in terms of harming national security. The revolution is coming America, the rest of the world wants its freedom back - you know, than thing you say you're fighting for by taking it from others?

[Jon Green]

Re: Presumed guilty then

Well, they've probably handed Snowden's exoneration to him on a plate. Any halfway competent lawyer can take a quote like that and turn it into an argument that USGov has already judged him guilty before he's even been arrested, much less tried, and thus there is no chance of a fair and just trial.

Perhaps Snowden does have friends in high places, after all...

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Ian 62 Re: Presumed guilty then

"....Is it appropriate to be calling him a criminal already?" Agreed, Snowjob hasn't had the chance to face his accusers in court and had judgement passed, so despite his admissions he is still technically just accused of crimes and a suspect, not a defacto criminal.

[Sir Runcible Spoon]

Re: Ian 62 Presumed guilty then

Fuck me, I just upvoted the above comment, and then realised it was a Bryant comment.

I feel feint, but he's right. You can admit to all the crimes under the Sun, but until you have been convicted by a jury of your peers, then he's innocent; unless it's all done in a secret court of course, then they'll just read the papers and decide he's guilty.

[Mike VandeVelde]

mb;dr

seriously, i would take 10 extra edons for one less matt bryant. hes like amanfrommars but less amusing.

[Matt Bryant]

Mike VandeVelde Re: mb;dr

"seriously, i would take 10 extra edons for one less matt bryant....." I'd be quite happy with just one of the sheeple that can actually formulate a coherent argument for what they hold so religeously dear, without them falling back on tired reflex and shrieking "Fascist!" when they cannot keep up.

[Mike VandeVelde]

^^

"tired reflex and shrieking"

[Scorchio!!]

Re: Mike VandeVelde mb;dr

"I'd be quite happy with just one of the sheeple that can actually formulate a coherent argument for what they hold so religeously dear, without them falling back on tired reflex and shrieking "Fascist!" when they cannot keep up."

The argumentum ad hominem is the stock in trade of woolly thinkers. Not only is it the best that they can do, but it actually seems to work, inasmuch that people find it easy to believe them.

[Scorchio!!]

Re: Presumed guilty then

He has admitted to criminal activity; no it is not inappropriate.

As to the rest of the babble, I fully expected Assange to come out with the BS that he has. Indeed, he and Wikileaks would be the dangerous precedent, a man convicted on 17 counts of breaking into computers, ranging from Pentagon Air Force command computers through to the Australian police computers holding details of the investigations into him; Assange is a criminal, and so are those he is so vigorously defending. As to the arguments, it matters not whether Manning, Assange and others knew or cared whether or not the information being divulged would harm anyone (and the Taliban have their eyes on people who gave the ISAF details of mine locations, for example); it is not their job, it is not their province. Indeed the so called leakers have/had one job in this respect, and that was to not divulge classified information to anyone not entitled by job/need to know to see such information.

We've seen the arguments concerning whether or not the helicopter gunship attack video was edited to make it seem other than it was, and a tranche of other arguments. Assange was warned when convicted on 17 counts that the next time would see him do time, and thus he has made use of third parties who knew their duties under their equivalent of the official secrets act. The BS that I read from spotty youths making silly claims is really doing nothing to change the facts. Manning knew what he was doing was illegal, if as he and his defence say he was unable to assess the consequences of his deeds that is as good as saying that he was in a position to know better but chose to act otherwise, and now he will pay for his pains. This will I hope act as a warning to others considering similar acts of folly.

[lglethal]

Re: Presumed guilty then @Scorchio

Snowden has not admitted to any crime. He has admitted performing an action - whistleblowing. And whistleblowing is not an illegal action (hence why there is a public interest defence for cases where overzealous prosecutors go after journalists and other whistleblowers).

Whether Snowden's actions can be considered illegal is something that should only be determined in a court of law by professionals. However, given the nature of the pressure being exerted by the US parliament on to the judiciary in cases of "National Security" the question is whether a fair trial could be expected. Snowden does not appear to think so, and to be perfectly honest most people outside of the US believes that he has no chance of a fair trial.

This whole topic has hurt US relations with its allies significantly and to be honest the way the US is still chasing after Snowden is only making you appear worse. No one likes a bully...

[Scorchio!!]

Re: Presumed guilty then @Scorchio

"Snowden has not admitted to any crime."

He has admitted to releasing classified information, and that is a crime, no matter how much you turn around and click your heels, Dorothy.

[Anonymous Coward]

violated the public's trust,

Isn't that what he revealed 'MERICUH was doing?

I agree though he went beyond being a whistleblower with what he did, but at the same time, ave you read the charges brought against him? Most are the same charge with slightly different wording.

Did you leak the information online

Did you give access to the information to others not entitled to said information

Did you take information without authorisation

Did you take more than X bits of information

Did you take information regarding X

Did you take information regarding Y

Did you take information regarding Z

etc etc etc

http://newsok.com/a-list-of-charges-and-verdicts-in-the-case-of-army-pfc.-bradley-manning/article/3867509

But since it's 'MURICAH! they're probably going to be served as consecutive sentences, even though at least half of them are pretty much the same crime. Personally I'd say that many of those sentences should be served concurently, eg the first 9 I believe he was found guilty of, which were practically the same offense. With the next lot served concurrently, starting after the first sentencing has finished etc etc.

But of course that'll never happen, he's going to wind up serving 100 years in guantanimo.

As much as I dislike many of the 'less civil' countries who torture and kill prisoners, at least they're honest about it and get it over with quickly (relative to the life of torture manning will probably face)

[g e]

"violated the public's trust"

Fucking hubris overload or WHAT.

[Bleu]

Sad but ...

What the hell was Manning thinking?

He was in uniform, under the strictest type of NDA, and very junior. Looked rather fetching in his uniform at the trial.

AFAIK, wikileaks hasn't finished publishing the material Manning passed to them. We have the presumably Assange-titled Collateral Murder and a load of minor tales of undiplomatic diplomacy.

Still, I hope that he (Manning) gets a pardon before too long.

As an aside, I was idly wondering if the Ecuadorean Embassy would cater to Julian's driving force by smuggling in the occasional groupie.

With his urge to poke his prong into groupies, the lack must be the biggest hardship for Jules.

Still, hope he manages to leave for the place that has granted him asylum.

Viva Ed Snowden!

[AbelSoul]

Re: Sad but ...

> ".... What the hell was Manning thinking?..."

Who knows? Perhaps something like: "I can't just sit here in silence while civilians are being murdered.."

Or maybe: "The public really ought to know about this torture programme.."

Or even something along the lines of: "Hang on, I swore an oath to defend the constitution.."

Etc, etc....

[Bob Camp]

Re: Sad but ...

Manning was mentally unstable, behaving oddly, and had recently been demoted. Nothing sensible was going through his mind at the time. He had a brawl with his superior officer, and she kicked his behind. He explicitly told her the U.S. flag meant nothing to him, and he had no allegiance to its country or its people. It was all about revenge. They probably were getting ready to yank his security clearance, but it takes the government so long to do anything he was able to grab some random documents and leak them before any other action was taken.

FYI, according to U.S. law and case law, federal workers (and military personnel) are not allowed to be whistleblowers if it relates directly to their job. They are required to report it within the government or chain of command. Which is why it was easy for the judge to find him guilty of everything else except aiding the enemy.

[Scorchio!!]

Re: Sad but ...

"As an aside, I was idly wondering if the Ecuadorean Embassy would cater to Julian's driving force by smuggling in the occasional groupie.

With his urge to poke his prong into groupies, the lack must be the biggest hardship for Jules."

I have been quietly pondering if the reason the last Ecuadorian Embarassador was not so discreetly sacked was that Julie had, ahem, 'subverted' her in his usual way.

[Anonymous Coward]

And the others?

It would also be interesting to know what will happen to the people who, according to the leaked documents, performed illegal and unethical acts while in the service of the US military.

I get the feeling that we won't hear much of that though.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: And the others?

Uh, leading up to the high point of the torture and so on, a good portion or the majority of the private contractors were Israeli, at Abu Ghraib in particular. Occasionally reported in mainstream papers at the time, if you take the time to look, that info is probably still around.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: AC Re: And the others?

"..... leading up to the high point of the torture and so on, a good portion or the majority of the private contractors were Israeli, at Abu Ghraib in particular....." Yeah, I call probable anti-Jewish propaganda on that one, probably courtesy of one of their Arab neighbours. If you wish to prove otherwise then please do supply some form of verifiable proof or risk being exposed as just a gullible bigot.

[Scorchio!!]

Re: AC And the others?

"If you wish to prove otherwise then please do supply some form of verifiable proof or risk being exposed as just a gullible bigot."

To my amazement you were given negative marks for your post, and this just goes to show that the truth does not appeal to some. Or, in the words of the PR woman in Doug Adams' Hitch hiker's guide, "well tell me mister wise guy, do we want fire fitted nasally[...]', and a load of other culturally relative committee BS about the need for fire, and its applications.

[Version 1.0]

Re: And the others?

Not true - Lieutenant Calley (My Lai Massacre) did three years for illegal and unethical acts while in the service of the US military. /sarcasm

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: UK has history for this to...

"have you got blood on your hands Prime Minister?"

[Bleu]

Re: UK has history for this to...

Following enjoyable deviation from topic

An Irish friend posed to me the rhetorical question 'Why did Blair convert to Catholicism?'

After all of my attempted replies missed the mark, my friend delivered the true answer.

In paraphrase, the evil bastard wanted absolution for his evil acts,

and the Catholic church was the only one nearby that might deliver it to him.

I believe my friend is correct.

Beer, 'cos half soaked.

[Scorchio!!]

Re: UK has history for this to...

"In paraphrase, the evil bastard wanted absolution for his evil acts,

and the Catholic church was the only one nearby that might deliver it to him."

It might also explain his predilection for reproduction, and reproduction by proxy, in the form of importing so many millions of people that our infrastructure is creaking, and much, much more.

I will volunteer for the post of public executioner the day that ToniBliar and crew are found guilty of their crimes.

[Mephistro]

Re: UK has history for this to...

I agree with your comment, but I find the last sentence -"... and closed the case."- distasteful, given the context. ;0)

[Scorchio!!]

Re: UK has history for this to...

"Still it could be worse, after a certain British doctor spotted that the dossier of evidence in favour of the Iraq war was bunk, they killed him in order to create a distraction, then basically forged the coroners report into his death."

Make it simple please; do you have evidence to support what appears to be the claim that he was killed because he decried rather than supported the dossier? If you can prove it and have more than suspicions I'll be grateful, because one thing that I do have in common with the Wikileaks idiota is that I want Blair et al prosecuted for conducting an illegal war. I also want the Blair's babes and others who supported the call prosecuted, especially those who voted strongly against an investigation into the rights and wrongs of the whole sordid affair.

Bear in mind that Hans Blix - the UN atomic specialist - said that Blair's et al. claims were bunk, including the Nigere yellow cake claim, which turned out to be sheer desperation on the part of these vile creatures in pursuit of their war.

[dougal83]

Does this sum up American? A country where you can get more incarceration for leaks of information than being a serial killer?

[Anonymous Coward]

re: Does this sum up American?

Sadly, there are far worse things that sum up present day America.

However, incarceration for "leaks of information," if one works for government or armed services is somewhat expected the world over. Or worse.

There may be considerable arguments that the actions of Manning and Snowden were for the general good of the world, but no government could be expected to see them as being for the good of their country.

What did anyone expect that an American military court was going to give an American soldier who admitted to giving away a huge amount of information? A pat on the back? Not very likely.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: re: Does this sum up American?

"There may be considerable arguments that the actions of Manning and Snowden were for the general good of the world"

Is anyone actually better off?

Most of the stuff released by Manning was boring drivel. Some cost decent diplomats their jobs. The US was mildly embarrassed for a day or two - more over the actual leak than any content.

As for Snowden, he has informed us governments are reading data we send over the public internet. Forgive me if I'm underwhelmed.

Like telling us there are cameras on motorways. As if we didn't know.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Is anyone actually better off?

Julian Assange?

People have heard of him now.

[ShadowedOne]

I tend to wonder..

Just how Watergate would be handled today (if it were recent rather than a past event). At a guess I'd say, the investigative journalists who brought the story to light would be vilified as traitors/un-American/etc and locked up (or worse), and Deep Throat would hunted down and either executed or conveniently die in some plausibly deniable way. The general public, of course, would be getting the standard diet of PR and spin and would be cheering on the persecution, err prosecution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I tend to wonder..

You can't possibly compare the exposure of Presidential corruption by a high level insider with the dump of hundreds of thousands of low level memos the guy couldn't possibly have read.

The difference between the Watergate journalists and todays press is that back then Mannings action would have been recognised for what it is - a ridiculous attempt at attention seeking.

Same with Snowden. A guy ruins his life to tell us that PUBLIC data has been read by governments, and not just by greedy corporate advertising oligarchs seeking to know what colour pants we wear.

The worst part of the Snowden affair is that it exposes the fact journalists haven't the first idea about how the internet works. Ironically most of the newspapers those same journalists work for are busy mining our data and posts so Google can sell more targeted ads.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dead men walking

That would be Manning, Snowden and ASSange. Hopefully they will have learned a lesson from their criminal behavior and stupidity.

[Someone Else]

Oxymoron alert

But the Democratic and Republican heads of the US House of Representatives intelligence committee said in a joint statement that "justice had been served".

The House Intelligence Committee has what can easily be the most oxymoronic name in the U.S> Government (and that's sayin' something!)

[Anonymous Coward]

He's about to spend the rest of his life in jail and for what?

He did force the Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan to resign - the poor guy had been criticizing corruption and the USA and the memo was publised. Otherwise I don't recall anything of political significance resulting from these leaks.

And given that Manning couldn't have read all those documents, it's was possible he could have put lives at risk.

You have to be seriously misguided to think that Mannings dump of hundreds of thousands of documents is anything other than complete madness by an rather odd attention seeker. Admittedly it had a few gullible newspapers hot under the collar for a week or two.

Had he filtered the information and leaked only the odd relevant document, he'd have had a much better case to be classed as a whistleblower, but sadly - somewhat like Snowden - he's just an insignificant bloke who wanted attention.

[BornToWin]

Wow, 136 years !

That would be great if the judge gives Manning the full 136 years in prison without parole. Now THAT would be justice for a change. Blighty could learn something from this case regarding punishment for cyber crims.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Wow, 136 years !

"That would be great if the judge gives Manning the full 136 years in prison...." Realisticly, what will happen is the judge will compress the overlapping charges. For example, when the charges are "release of documents, electronic release of the same documents, and release of documents to unauthorised people", the judge will take those to be three instances of the same crime and reduce the sentence to reflect that. In truth, Manning could actually get away with forty years and still get an early release inside that term, if the judge feels lenient. I suppose a lot depends on the frenzied dealing going on behind the scenes, and how much Manning now gives up to help the US nail Dickileaks and A$$nut.