Chelsea Manning Sentence Commuted

[Guard Dog]

 

First of all I am only addressing Manning leaking information. I didn't say anything about WHAT was leaked or what I thought about it. Don't comment on points I didn't make. Second of all your example of "all-American gangbangers" assaulting tourists and somehow conflating that wit the actions of an armed service in a combat zone is about the most intellectually vacant thing I've read this year. I am a little surprised it came from you.

 

For the record this thread is about Manning and his actions. Some of the info leaked describes activity that could credibly be called war crimes. But not all or of or even most of it. The body to deal with this kind of information in the US is the Congress, and the DoD. Had Manning sent information of illegal acts to the Senate Armed Services Committee instead of Wikileaks his story would likely have gone down completely different.

 

No, you didn't comment on it, which is precisely what rubbed me the wrong way: "once the shooting starts no questions whose side I'm on right or wrong". Those were your words. I might have misunderstood what you meant there, but it sounds like you'd take "our boys'" side regardless of what they did, because they wear the same uniform you did. That's not patriotism.

 

As for the bangers, being part of an armed service in a combat zone does not *in theory* afford you impunity to commit illegal acts, even though it usually does in practice. The big question is if the Iraq war was illegal to begin with. If it was illegal, what is the moral difference between your average jarhead and a common thug? Again, no conscription.

 

Frankly, I'm surprised that you think that following proper procedure would have yielded any results, especially considering your wider stance on Congressional dereliction of duty, executive overreach, etc. So Manning should have followed the rules knowing that it would have amounted to nothing? Even considering that the leaks were open and public, what has been done about them? The only person to go to jail over the whole affair was Manning. Honestly, what do you think the outcome would have been if some commission had been tasked with "reviewing" the claims made by some nobody analyst with serious issues?

 

I'll have faith in the rules and the system when the people who actually put the lives of servicemen and intelligence assets at risk are made to face the music. Fat chance that Dubya, Rummy and Cheney will be indicted though, so I guess I'll keep rooting for "lawbreakers".

 

Right or wrong meaning you don't damage your country by enabling or helping it's enemies. Like I said, if he had gone to the Senate Armed Services Committee justice, after a fashion, would have been done. It would not have been big, or splashy. It would have been kept quiet and would be altogether unsatisfactory but it would have also included steps to prevent a repeat.

 

Now, were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan illegal? No. They were not. Right or wrong in both cases the Congress of the United States authorized the President to do what he did. There is no higher international law to measure that against. Were they ill-advised? Yes. Were the poorly executed? Well, the combat phases were not but the management that came after is certainly questionable. Iraq in particular was a total waste of lives, time, and resources that made a bad situation worse. As for Afghanistan, in the wake of 9-11 doing the wrong thing would not be as bad as doing nothing.

[Gorgon]

I wonder. Do you think the reason he didn't pardon Snowden is practical or ideological. Practical in the sense that it would undermine the deterrent in divulging classified material, because Snowden hasn't been seen to be punished, rather he lives the life of an international celeb, often quoted and often asked on security matters, or ideological in that he broke the cardinal rule of the intelligence community and that the feeling is that the act itself was wrong. That he betrayed 'Murica as it were. 

[BruceVC]

I wonder. Do you think the reason he didn't pardon Snowden is practical or ideological. Practical in the sense that it would undermine the deterrent in divulging classified material, because Snowden hasn't been seen to be punished, rather he lives the life of an international celeb, often quoted and often asked on security matters, or ideological in that he broke the cardinal rule of the intelligence community and that the feeling is that the act itself was wrong. That he betrayed 'Murica as it were. 

The difference has been explained, Manning was treated very badly after being arrested and was deeply mentally unbalanced. He was kept in solitary confinement and denied hormone treatment.  His crime was leaking military and international cables 

 

Snowden betrayed his country's internal state  secrets as he worked for the NSA   and ended up living and finding shelter in an enemy country, he made no attempt to return to the USA  to face his sentence 

[213374U]

Now, were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan illegal? No. They were not. Right or wrong in both cases the Congress of the United States authorized the President to do what he did. There is no higher international law to measure that against.

So the US authorized itself, therefore it was legal. In other words, "might makes right". Can't really argue with that. Great philosophy while you're top dog, not so great when you cease to be.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Personally I would have rather Snowden pardoned than Manning since it seems like he was more careful about what he released and tried to make sure not to endanger US assets or personal (as opposed to Manning who indiscriminately gathered everything and gave it to Wikileaks).

Edited January 21, 2017 by Deadly_Nightshade

[kirottu]

Julian Assange claimed repeatedly that he would turn himself in if Manning 'got clemency', but of course won't turn himself in since Manning didn't get released immediately.

What a **** move. He should have shown some balls and turn himself in.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Bradass would've been better off in prison. At least there they could keep him on suicide watch.

[BruceVC]

 

Julian Assange claimed repeatedly that he would turn himself in if Manning 'got clemency', but of course won't turn himself in since Manning didn't get released immediately.

What a **** move. He should have shown some balls and turn himself in.

 

Assange has again shown what a complete parasite and disingenuous person he is 

 

He has no integrity and I hope one day he is jailed 

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Bradass would've been better off in prison. At least there they could keep him on suicide watch.

Bradass?

[Wrath of Dagon]

That's what he called himself, on Facebook I think.

[Guard Dog]

 

Now, were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan illegal? No. They were not. Right or wrong in both cases the Congress of the United States authorized the President to do what he did. There is no higher international law to measure that against.

So the US authorized itself, therefore it was legal. In other words, "might makes right". Can't really argue with that. Great philosophy while you're top dog, not so great when you cease to be.

 

It was legal inasmuch as the standards for going to war under the US Constitution were met. It was "legal" if for no other reason than there is no international body to whom sovereign states are beholden to justify themselves to or has power to redress the wrongs they do. Was it just? Was it moral? No, I'd have to say it wasn't. With Iraq at least. Add to that it was extraordinarily ill-advised and what you have left is, I hope, an object lesson to future administrations to use military force more judiciously and sparingly. Sometimes the status quo is better than all the possible alternatives.

 

And I'm sorry to say, might does make right. When Russia invaded Crimea did the "international police" go arrest Putin? Did anyone do much of anything meaningful? Not really. So to me that means it is incumbent on those with might to learn from past lessons and use their power responsibly. Which brings me back around to Manning going public with bad deeds which just puts everyone's back up rather than be a true whistle blower and give the information to people who might have done some good with it.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

That's what he called himself, on Facebook I think.

Huh, weird. I honestly thought that you might have been talking about a third person that I'd not heard about.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Now, were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan illegal? No. They were not. Right or wrong in both cases the Congress of the United States authorized the President to do what he did. There is no higher international law to measure that against.

So the US authorized itself, therefore it was legal. In other words, "might makes right". Can't really argue with that. Great philosophy while you're top dog, not so great when you cease to be.

 

It was legal inasmuch as the standards for going to war under the US Constitution were met. It was "legal" if for no other reason than there is no international body to whom sovereign states are beholden to justify themselves to or has power to redress the wrongs they do. Was it just? Was it moral? No, I'd have to say it wasn't. With Iraq at least. Add to that it was extraordinarily ill-advised and what you have left is, I hope, an object lesson to future administrations to use military force more judiciously and sparingly. Sometimes the status quo is better than all the possible alternatives.

 

And I'm sorry to say, might does make right. When Russia invaded Crimea did the "international police" go arrest Putin? Did anyone do much of anything meaningful? Not really. So to me that means it is incumbent on those with might to learn from past lessons and use their power responsibly. Which brings me back around to Manning going public with bad deeds which just puts everyone's back up rather than be a true whistle blower and give the information to people who might have done some good with it.

 

Afghanistan was 100 % legal, necessary and absolutely should be supported by all Americans who are patriotic

 

Al-Qaeda was behind 9/11, AQ was using Afghanistan as a base...the Taliban were housing AQ and refused to hand Bin Laden over. The USA and its coalition was completely justified to invade Afghanistan