Now we are with our families think a little of Bradley Manning. Seven months in solitary confinement alone in a cell without a pillow or sheet, forbidden even to exercise. May God bless him and keep him and may he know that we think of him.
Oh what drivel. He violated the UCMJ and is being treated accordingly. His enlistment involved the *voluntary* decision to give up his ordinary civil rights as a private citizen to become (legally) the property of the US government. No one made him do it, the terms of the contract were clear, and he violated its terms. It makes no difference whether or not he feels noble about his acts, he broke a clear and unambiguous set of promises he made *voluntarily*.
Government needs to be held accountable, and sometimes this means disclosing information it would rather not see made public. But if one chooses to do this in the name of some claimed moral nobility, one also chooses the consequences that go with this. The problem with the Mannings of this world is that they want to be the Saviors Of Mankind, but want this to be consequence-free.
Worst of all, Manning and Assange didn't act to *selectively* disclose what they felt was a set of bad actions by the US government. They simply dumped everything in sight into the public eye (or are doing so as we speak) without regard for the consequences to diplomats, their dependents, the military folks who are in harm's way, and the diplomatic process itself. By doing what they did, they deeply damaged the whole process of diplomatic negotiations and probably made the current wars *last longer*.
Manning got what he deserves and needs to go to jail for the rest of his life.
P.S. The founders of the US put their lives at risk to stand up to abusive government. But - unlike Manning - they did so consciously, without demanding a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card if they got caught.
The prison is properly run, but they should take away the TV. This is the consequence of breaking laws. He could have prevented this.
You have a point there. A big difference between say Gandhi or Martin Luther King and many of today's protestors is Gandhi and MLK were prepared to go to jail for their beliefs, they even recognized it could be a useful tactic to pressure the authorities. But it does seem some of today's progressives figure on going home after the protest even if they broke the law.
Not so, they have released only a tiny fraction of the U.S. diplomatic cables they have, and *some* of the material they have released has been edited to prevent harm to individuals.
IMO Wikileaks has done some good work, revealing things that should have been revealed. However I am concerned that they have put people in harm's way by identifying them (e.g. Afghans working with the govt.). And the group's leader, Mr. Assange, appears to have several screws loose.
*So Far*. The problem is that they have shown absolutely no real judgment is how material for publication is selected. WL *could* serve a useful purpose to counterbalance the inherent desire of government to do naughty things in secret. Thus far, though, all they've demonstrated is the usual drooling progressive anti-war instincts without much real thought behind any of it ... how unusual...
This is unclear. What real purpose is served in revealing some diplomat's view of their counterpart in another nation? This is a perfectly normal form of reporting that isn't useful for much other than to embarrass the US government (which is, after all, the central goal of all Western progressives - the most self loathing bunch I've ever met in my travels around the planet).
Right - the damage far exceeds any claimed benefits.
He's just another in a long line of self-proclaimed Saviors Of Mankind. You can always spot them. They know what's good for you, they know how to spend your money, they know whom you should serve, and they, of course, are uniquely entitled to the position of Professional Savior, Senior Grade.
Embarrassing the government into better behavior is one thing. Thoughtlessly slinging feces all over the cage is the act of a chimp.
Given the intense interest the material they've released recently aroused in the press, the public, and various governments I'd say they've chosen quite well. It's worth noting that the press largely ignored some of their earlier releases, so they started putting out stuff more likely to grab headlines. It's too bad that so much of the public finds serious news boring and wants to hear about scandals.
They already have, unless you figure there's some good reason we shouldn't be told about illegal toxic waste dumping, or Kenyan govt. death squads, or a drug company trying to suppress unfortunate test results....
How does revealing an oil company pulling the strings of a third-world govt. qualify as "drooling anti-war instincts"? Slogans are fun, but if you slip into the habit of believing your own slogans you're not doing yourself any favors.
Is your knowledge of the information they've released over the past four years limited to recent headlines? Some of the first stuff they released was on corruption in the govt. of Kenya, is there some good reason you figure that should be kept quiet? Or corruption of politicians in Peru, or allegedly illegal banking activities in the Cayman Islands, or an accident at an Iranian nuclear facility--do you really think none of this being public knowledge serves any good purpose? Pray tell, what kind of news do you like to hear about, the sports scores?
Assange appears to have a strong anti-American streak, and sadly since March of 2003 there have been a lot more people ready to listen to his point of view.
There's that slogan thing again. Waving a placard is probably not as good a form of exercise as you think it is.
We don't know that, not yet. And considering the nature of the Afghan govt., any damage Wikileaks is able to do will be small potatoes compared to what that govt. does.
How much do you know about his background? Given the way he was raised it's not surprising that paranoia and a hatred of authority are part of his character. Emotionally rewarding as you find it to assume Assange is motivated purely by being "progressive", he seems to have other problems unrelated to his politics. His management style is highly reminiscent of Donald Rumsfeld, and people who can't tolerate loyal dissent and bulldoze their own supporters into submission are dangerous to have in a position of power.
Indeed, and some of them know that God Himself wants them to invade a country that regrettably regrettably turned out not to have the WMDs it was supposed to have. They come in many flavors.
Too bad we had to wait for a chimp to tell us about some of this stuff.
Well, that was an easy troll. Ford fender?
You are definitely one warped liberal. It's a shame the son-of-a-bitch is still breathing!
Good one!
I was specifically speaking about WL in context pf the current Manning/US diplomatic leaks, not WL broadly.
Again ... current context only.
It is the only thing relevant to the Manning question which is what this thread is about.
All exercise has some benefit. Whatever else he is, Assange seems fairly clearly planted on the left/progressive/anti-war/anti-US side of the political map. Whatever else he is, he is thus part of the Drool Patrol this constitutes. (Note that I am commenting on his (their) ideas, not their persons of which I have no knowledge nor interest.)
A lovely theory but ... The fact is (sadly) that sometimes a stable despot it better than nothing. Simply exposing corruption, bad behavior, and so forth may be necessary from time-to-time, but it is rarely sufficient to promoted the desired change. Assange and the rest of the feces hurlers are really sure that what they're exposing is wrong (often with some justification), but their act of exposure ends up being destructive rather than constructive because it isn't followed by any real remediation. That's why government tends to be a better agent to influence such change - it has the means to exert pressure for positive change. And there's the rub ... government itself is often untrustworthy.
But it DID have a nice continuous border with the largest state funding asymmetric warfare on the planet. And that's far more important than all the rest of the noise. The whole WMD argument was foolish from the start. While germane, it was minor league in the scheme of why Iraq had to be pried open. I would submit that there were several strong (and still relevant) arguments for neutering Saddam's government:
1) We helped sustain his power, we had an ethical obligation to leash our own dog. Strangely, the tender anti-war bunch argues the first clause of the previous statement, but is reduced to quivering rage by the second clause. 2) Iran's funding for asymmetric attacks against non-combatants (aka Terra-Ism) is well established. They've been the worst of the worst in the region for decades. A pacified Iraq gives the world's grown ups a launching point for pushing the Iranians into some level of civil behavior. Since no sane person wants to see an invasion of Iran, the next best thing is to surround them with military and political pressure. When W left office, the West had military assets in the nearby ocean (2 carrier groups?), six figures of military in Iraq, a more-or-less friendly Turkey, supply lines through the "'Stans" and more military in Afghanistan. Taken in total, there opportunity was there the tighten the noose and make the Iranians play nice. That more-or-less evaporated when President Hopeium with the full sophistication of a Harvard grad and lawyer (but I kid) went to the region 10 minutes after his election effectively declaring "It's all our fault." Tremendous strategic advantage and tactial inertia were neutralized in a couple of idiotic speeches in Araby. 3) If we had not acted, the Israelis almost certainly would have ... as they will now again be forced to do. The noise level and general threat to the planet goes way up when a tiny country with nukes confronts a much bigger one that wants nukes. The risk is considerably smaller when a huge country with nukes does that heavy lifting instead.W will be vindicated in history just like Truman was. He was absolutely right about what needed doing ... His only mistakes were: a) Not saying so more loudly with a justification as above and b) Letting the State Department talk him into nation building and trying to fix a problem that's been there for over 1000 years and not of our making.
Maybe we could put Jane Fonda in an adjoining cell then they could just bleed their little hearts out together.
< Again ... current context only.
The revelations about Shell Oil infiltrating the govt. of Nigeria come from the leaked U.S. diplomatic cables you're complaining about. So does the story about Pfizer messing with the govt. of Nigeria over drug trials on children.
Does the expression, "Do your homework" ring any bells? Of course you have every right to form and express your opinion without being in possession of the facts, there's no law against ignorance.
You know I never found Jane Fonda in any way attractive. Does that make me warped as well?
Tim W
Which all Americans in government and public service do every minute of every day - especially your politicians.
Rather like the ethos of the USA which generally wants to "be the Saviors Of Mankind" - as long as its to their benefit and profit.
What an utter load of cobblers! Manning and Assange have done the world a great service - and what is America doing about it?
Using unlawful methods to try and get Assange extradited to the USA or some of your politicians (Palin for one) is demanding unlawful execution of Assange - and that is from the land of "freedom and free speech". Hypocrites!!
As for "deeply damaged the whole process of diplomatic negotiations" why does your diplomatic service need personal biometric and financial data of members of the UN and foreign governments - along with other irrelevant data? Your government diplomats "harmed" themselves by stupidly allowing up to 3,000,000 US citizens access to restricted information - and any one (or more) could/is passing on that information in many different ways.
Why, he has actually done the world a great service and exposed the true colours and motives of the so-called "land of the free" - which in reality is rapidly becoming the police state of the world.
Very admirable too, but that's what many people are doing now in the most abusive country in the world... *AMERICA*
But - unlike Manning - they did so
But remember, they were the traitors and terrorists of the day - and every "traitor and terrorist" is some countries "hero and freedom fighter".
As a matter of interest, how do you know that they didn't "consciously, demanding a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card if they got caught"? You weren't there...
I dunno. Saw "Klute" the other day and she seemed a lot less attractive then than she does now at 72. Just wish that she'd take some Ritalin or something so that she'd think before she opens her mouth.
So you would have no sympathy for an American soldier during the revolution who had been captured by the British? Or (for the sake of argument) a British subject who was sympathetic to the Americans and imprisoned for publishing information detrimental to the British government?
It was written:
As far as the Swedish charges go, it is certainly no worse than some of the things alleged about Ben Franklin in his day, or for that matter, some of our more modern Presidents...
No, just gay! :)
I have no sympathy for Benedict Arnold.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.