Prism Program ( Big Brother gone too far?)

[Wrath of Dagon]

I wrote my rep once about insane people not being placed on the FBI gun check list, and all I got back was a bunch of platitudes and a pretty clear indication he wasn't going to do anything. Since then we had Virginia Tech and a bunch of other mass shootings. Politicians don't try to solve problems, they only try to give the impression they're solving problems. And yes, we're just a bunch of bleating sheep, at least people in other countries will go out and riot once in a while.

[Walsingham]

I wrote my rep once about insane people not being placed on the FBI gun check list, and all I got back was a bunch of platitudes and a pretty clear indication he wasn't going to do anything. Since then we had Virginia Tech and a bunch of other mass shootings. Politicians don't try to solve problems, they only try to give the impression they're solving problems. And yes, we're just a bunch of bleating sheep, at least people in other countries will go out and riot once in a while.

 

Well, fair play for even doing it once.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Woah! Manning got 35 years. That's basically the best years of his life. He has some retirement centre to look forward to, or at least a last shot at breaking Bad like Walt, that Bryan Cranston character.

[BruceVC]

Woah! Manning got 35 years. That's basically the best years of his life. He has some retirement centre to look forward to, or at least a last shot at breaking Bad like Walt, that Bryan Cranston character.

 

Apparently he could have received a much more harsh sentence so I suppose he can be grateful. Also he could be released after serving just a third of his sentence. Add to that time already served and he could be out in 10-12 year with good behaviour?

[Walsingham]

Something to reflect on:  his own defence team argued that he took these actions out of a confused self-identity coupled with narcissistic drives.

 

According to the defence narrative he didn't do this out of a principled stand against US actions. He did it because he felt isolated in the military and wanted to be loved. So, in my opinion he simply abandoned his sworn duty to go chasing fame and fortune as a pacifist hero. And sod the consequences.

 

He's such a pathetic figure I very nearly feel sorry for him. What has he achieved? The wars continued. The US got fed up, and pulled back from Iraq and Afghan. Kentucky Fried Qaeda ...uninterested in either Manning or Assange... is still serving up 50 varieties of death across the Muslim world. That probably won't change for at least ten years.

 

And in ten years he'll still be sweating away in a jail cell.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Walsingham

[Zoraptor]

His defence team is tasked with getting him a minimum sentence, they'll do what is best for that as every defence team does. If that means emphasising his personality problems or whatever else then fine, he didn't do the really easy thing that would have got him a really reduced sentence and lie about the role of Wikileaks and Assange as the US wanted.

 

He's already done more good than most people ever do, I wouldn't begrudge him reducing his sentence from 90 years to 35 years. Hope he gets the Nobel Peace Prize, it would be far more deserved than certain recent recipients.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

He can always profit from the book in 7 years or so.

[Gfted1]

Don't forget the movie rights.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Nah, Miniseries or bust.

[BruceVC]

 

 

He's already done more good than most people ever do, I wouldn't begrudge him reducing his sentence from 90 years to 35 years. Hope he gets the Nobel Peace Prize, it would be far more deserved than certain recent recipients.

 

"more good than  most people ever do"

 

  Sure, whatever. Apart from the obvious issues that  Walsie mentioned what good has come from Manning ever breaking the terms of military contract and putting the lives of thousands of people at risk?

 

Oh wait, you are right. Due to Wikileaks Assange has been curtailed and is now holdup in a embassy with almost no freedom. So you correct something positive did come from it

[pmp10]

He's such a pathetic figure I very nearly feel sorry for him. What has he achieved? The wars continued. The US got fed up, and pulled back from Iraq and Afghan. Kentucky Fried Qaeda ...uninterested in either Manning or Assange... is still serving up 50 varieties of death across the Muslim world. That probably won't change for at least ten years.

 

And in ten years he'll still be sweating away in a jail cell.

For starters he damaged US diplomatic credibility for decades to come.

That's way more that can be said for any journalist.

[BruceVC]

 

He's such a pathetic figure I very nearly feel sorry for him. What has he achieved? The wars continued. The US got fed up, and pulled back from Iraq and Afghan. Kentucky Fried Qaeda ...uninterested in either Manning or Assange... is still serving up 50 varieties of death across the Muslim world. That probably won't change for at least ten years.

 

And in ten years he'll still be sweating away in a jail cell.

For starters he damaged US diplomatic credibility for decades to come.

That's way more that can be said for any journalist.

 

 

And damaging the leading country of Western ideology in anyway is a good thing because....

 

I guess you will would be happy with us following the Chinese mindset and methodology of running a country and views on foreign affairs and intervention

[pmp10]

 

 

He's such a pathetic figure I very nearly feel sorry for him. What has he achieved? The wars continued. The US got fed up, and pulled back from Iraq and Afghan. Kentucky Fried Qaeda ...uninterested in either Manning or Assange... is still serving up 50 varieties of death across the Muslim world. That probably won't change for at least ten years.

 

And in ten years he'll still be sweating away in a jail cell.

For starters he damaged US diplomatic credibility for decades to come.

That's way more that can be said for any journalist.

 

 

And damaging the leading country of Western ideology in anyway is a good thing because....

Because they don't agree with direction said ideology is taking and feel that common people think likewise?

Naive perhaps but understandable.

[Walsingham]

His defence team is tasked with getting him a minimum sentence, they'll do what is best for that as every defence team does. If that means emphasising his personality problems or whatever else then fine, he didn't do the really easy thing that would have got him a really reduced sentence and lie about the role of Wikileaks and Assange as the US wanted.

 

He's already done more good than most people ever do, I wouldn't begrudge him reducing his sentence from 90 years to 35 years. Hope he gets the Nobel Peace Prize, it would be far more deserved than certain recent recipients.

 

So you're taking the view of wikileaks itself that this was a cynical move to reduce his sentence?

 

At least you've waited until after sentencing. Wikileaks did it before sentencing. Way to go, wikileaks! Obviously it wouldn't do to suffer a temporary diminution of the shine on your asses until after the trial!

 

Seriously, though, Zor. I'm quite astonished at your stance on this. You're a smart chap. Is it so hard to believe that your man was just a nutter? You think every VC citation I've ever read indicates a well mind?

[Zoraptor]

Shrug. Most of the people tried by Stalin 'confessed' and asked for forgiveness when the vast majority of them did nothing at all. He did the 'crime', the only thing he had left was going for mitigation and as low a sentence as possible. His only options were standing up and saying he was proud of what he did, and getting the book thrown at him, or saying what needed to be said and getting out sometime relatively soon. There's nothing cynical about that, and everything sensible about that. All that could be asked of him was not to drop others in the asterisks to save himself, and he did not give the US what it wanted on Assange. Most of the time being a martyr is stupid, not principled- unless you have no choice. He owed no one, not me, not Assange and not the US public he served so well decades of his life just to prove some sort of point.
 

 

He's already done more good than most people ever do, I wouldn't begrudge him reducing his sentence from 90 years to 35 years. Hope he gets the Nobel Peace Prize, it would be far more deserved than certain recent recipients.

 
putting the lives of thousands of people at risk?

 

Post Proof Or Retract.
 
That was one of the more amusing things about the whole situation. The whole "sky is/ isn't falling" depending on what and who was being talked to. If they were going after WL then it was a horrendous travesty and jihadis would be camping on the Whitehouse Lawn in time for bicentenary of those northern barbarians burning it thanks to all the horrible secrets contained within, but other wise
 
"no sensitive intelligence sources or methods were compromized by this disclosure." Robert Gates, Secretary of Defence

Edited August 22, 2013 by Zoraptor

[Walsingham]

I regret to say that our oppositional argument thus far seems to have made to dig in on an untenable position, for once.

 

1) You are denying that Manning had gender issues, and behavioural problems? Or you're just denying that they were the most important thing in his life, and that unconnected to those he decided to betray his uniform and position?

 

2.1) You are perfectly well read enough to know that contextual information is often the hardest bit to get a good grip on in intelligence. What Manning did, by posting everything he could get his hands on, was hand out vast amounts of context along with specific data.

 

2.2)I would assert that, given that his actions were illegal, the burden is on YOU to tell us what he revealed that was so important and so heinous, it warranted his actions?

[BruceVC]

I regret to say that our oppositional argument thus far seems to have made to dig in on an untenable position, for once.

 

1) You are denying that Manning had gender issues, and behavioural problems? Or you're just denying that they were the most important thing in his life, and that unconnected to those he decided to betray his uniform and position?

 

2.1) You are perfectly well read enough to know that contextual information is often the hardest bit to get a good grip on in intelligence. What Manning did, by posting everything he could get his hands on, was hand out vast amounts of context along with specific data.

 

2.2)I would assert that, given that his actions were illegal, the burden is on YOU to tell us what he revealed that was so important and so heinous, it warranted his actions?

 

I agree with everything Walsie is saying on this topic but I want to add a few points

• This is about the principle of a person revealing personal and confidential information about a country. Every single country in the world has information that it doesn't want shared with the world. This is how the system works and its the same globally, this is not a Western phenomena. Even if you don't like America how can you think that a person has the right to distribute anything that is marked as "Top Secret" or similar. Especially when that person happens to work for military intelligence. Quiet diplomatic channels are often used to resolve political issues. The countries involved don't want people finding out about the measures or the discussions around certain developments or  discussions. For example why do you think John Kerry has asked both the Israeli's and the Palestinians to keep the latest peace talks out the press?  And yet you are fine with Manning deciding to distribute any information irrespective of the consequences
• Finally would you be happier if I could show you that the leaking of cables had caused the loss of lives, is that what you really looking for. Death and destruction caused by Manning? Would you then agree what he did was wrong?

[IndiraLightfoot]

Good luck, Chelsea Manning!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I suppose Chelsea is a better name than a 'feminized' version of Bradley. I wonder if this means they will have to find a more femine actor to play him/her in the miniseries or movie?

[Walsingham]

I suppose Chelsea is a better name than a 'feminized' version of Bradley. I wonder if this means they will have to find a more femine actor to play him/her in the miniseries or movie?

 

Interesting point. Presumably they could get any hot blonde to play him/her. Might sell the script easier.

[Guard Dog]

Just to follow up on what some of you have said. I think Bruce was on this point earlier as well. There is a world of difference between what Manning did and what Snowden did. Manning released info on things the US was doing to other nations. Snowden leaked what it was doing to it's own citizens. One is laudable, the other is treason.

[Zoraptor]

1) You are denying that Manning had gender issues, and behavioural problems? Or you're just denying that they were the most important thing in his life, and that unconnected to those he decided to betray his uniform and position?

Actually, I'm saying they're irrelevant. Maybe he leaked the stuff because he was gay, confused and bullied, what he is saying now. Maybe he leaked it because he was disgusted by the lies and brutality, as he said then. Most likely it's a bit of both. But we cannot know the real reason why, and saying one, now, gets him less time in prison, saying the other gets him more. I'm not saying one or the other is true, I'm saying that I don't really care if he's emphasising certain things now to get a reduced sentence, a situation that happens nearly all the time because it is the defence's job whether it's Manning or not

 

2.1) You are perfectly well read enough to know that contextual information is often the hardest bit to get a good grip on in intelligence. What Manning did, by posting everything he could get his hands on, was hand out vast amounts of context along with specific data.

 

I'm also well versed enough to know that important stuff is given high classification which basically none of Manning's stuff had, and that the best way of learning contextual information by far is to be actually fighting the enemy not trolling through tens of thousands of pages of stuff looking for that one time, in Kandahar Camp, potentially years ago, where something relevant happened. This was a war where the Kemp who wasn't in Spandau Ballet, a Prince of the Realm and various others got themselves embedded with journalists throughout the course of it, no doubt there was important operational info given out there too, if you're looking for it.

 

2.2)I would assert that, given that his actions were illegal, the burden is on YOU to tell us what he revealed that was so important and so heinous, it warranted his actions?

The vast majority of the stuff he released dealt with stuff that was not really (military) secret, just embarrassing. I doubt the US's views on Sarkozy came as any surprise to anyone, least of all the french, and the Iraqis/ Afghans knew that the US regularly shot up civilians and then obfuscated the matter to cover it up using the "we shot up militants, for defs.. maybe we'll investigate.. OK, just getting round to the investigation.. everyone forgotten yet?" method- the Iraqis know when civilians are killed because it's their civilians and people know them as something other than a short paragraph on page 47 of the NYT. But some people would simply believe the first part of the narrative- the whole point of having it in the first place- anything to shake their confidence and complacency is of benefit to society as a whole.

 

 

Finally would you be happier if I could show you that the leaking of cables had caused the loss of lives, is that what you really looking for. Death and destruction caused by Manning? Would you then agree what he did was wrong?

 

 

You cannot show death and destruction caused by Manning and we both know it, which makes the whole thing an irrelevant appeal to emotion. "Something didn't happen in reality, but if it did then the person would be bad, wouldn't he?". Well yes, he'd be bad, and if Pope Francis is a child killing cannibal he'd be bad, if Valve powered Steam by the tortured cries of a million baby bunnies they'd be bad and if Graeme Smith won a cricket match by beating his opponents to death with a set of stumps then he'd be bad. But none of those happened though (well, not sure about the Steam thing) so they aren't bad.

[alanschu]

"Something didn't happen in reality, but if it did then the person would be bad, wouldn't he?"

 

Is it safe to say something didn't happen?  (I haven't followed this closely enough)

 

I would have categorized it under "I have no clue if something did or did not happen" based on my ignorance, however.

 

 

 

EDIT: Just to be clear, I agree with the sentiment that simply because something COULD have happened (through logical deduction), doesn't mean that it did.  The lack of evidence against said event happening is not evidence that said event did happen.

Edited August 23, 2013 by alanschu

[Zoraptor]

It's a bit of a dichotomy depending on who was being talked to- when talking to the press it was all blood and thunder, at other times the damage was described as 'minimal' and similar terms. But as an example of the latter, from a source that is not exactly sympathetic to Wikileaks, and in a (quoted) form in which if Gates were lying he would (theoretically) get into Big Trouble.

 

I'd dispute the article's assertion that the leaks were of minor interest, but agree they were of minor worth from any 'enemies of the US' standpoint.

[Walsingham]

On the contrary, it is you who are being selective and suggesting things were there when there's no proof. What was done that was either illegal or unexpected in the chaos of war?

 

I also can't believe you're saying that it's irrelevant that he did this out of a motivation to bolster his ego. It might not matter to the information contained in the leak. But it sure as **** matters to the howls of outrage over his treatment.

 

You make a great show of being a switched on realpolitik guy, but:

 

Axiom: No oppositional or competitive enterprise can succeed without some degree of secrecy.

Assumption: You do not object to the use of secrecy in military and diplomatic operations?

Question 1: What in the release was not justifiably secret, in the context of military and diplomatic operations?

Question 2: What in the release justified Manning ignoring the chain of command?

 

I do not ask these questions because I expect to catch you out. I expect your answer to be though through and interesting. So stop bloody avoiding them.