Bradley Manning Convicted of Espionage, Acquitted of 'Aiding the Enemy' 529
crashcy sends word that a verdict has been handed down in the case of Bradley Manning. Quoting:
"A military judge on Tuesday found Pfc. Bradley Manning not guilty of aiding the enemy, but convicted him of multiple counts of violating the Espionage Act. Private Manning had already confessed to being WikiLeaks’ source for a huge cache of government documents, which included videos of airstrikes in which civilians were killed, hundreds of thousands of front-line incident reports from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, dossiers on men being held without trial at the Guantánamo Bay prison, and about 250,000 diplomatic cables. But while Private Manning had pleaded guilty to a lesser version of the charges he was facing, which could expose him to up to 20 years in prison, the government decided to press forward with a trial on a more serious version of the charges, including 'aiding the enemy' and violations of the Espionage Act. Beyond the fate of Private Manning as an individual, the 'aiding the enemy' charge — unprecedented in a leak case — could have significant long-term ramifications for investigative journalism in the Internet era."
NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Informative)
NSA wasn't Manning. NSA was Snowden. Manning released diplomatic cables to wikileaks.
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Informative)
Only in the vaguest sense? Manning was a soldier, Snowden a civilian. Manning leaked a huge swath of cables regardless of content. Snowden leaked details on a program he thought was abusive. The government involved is the same, but the "system" Snowden would face would be a standard civilian jury. Manning stood in front of a military tribunal without a jury of his peers.
Re: (Score:3)
Not at all. Sometimes the ends do justify the means. Sometimes the good you do eclipses the bad. We can argue whether or not it does here, but to blindly state "he broke a rule, he must be punished" is childish.
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, you're for "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" then? I mean, if "ends justify the means" then what prevents us from going down that slippery slope?
IMHO the ends do not justify the means. We should always evaluate HOW we do things, and never cross certain lines, regardless of the benefits of crossing those lines.
However, that being said, the MEANS in this case are just, because there was no other possible way to effect change. YOU can effect change using Just Means, you have to understand and accept the consequences. Snowden didn't harm anyone in particular, and the case can be made that he didn't harm anyone in general, except the powers that were abusing the system. THAT is what makes it just, IMHO.
Do not give the nutjobs permission to do "whatever it takes" to accomplish their goals.
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, you're for "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" then?
Nice strawman, but I'll respond anyway. (Also, are you aware that "slippery slope" is the name of a fallacy? Not an argument?)
No, "ends justifies the means" doesn't justify torture and here's why.
1) It doesn't work.
2) Torturing their soldiers/"enemy combatants" loses us any sort of moral standing on the issue. We can't use their reprehensible behavior to garner sympathy from neutral parties when we do the same thing.
So in this case, the "ends" aren't desirable. Therefore they can't be used to justify the means.
It's nice that you feel so strongly about government corruption, but then get so fucking defensive when corruption is exposed. It's almost like double-think. Oh wait, no, it is double-think.
Now I'm sure that you'll equate my nuanced view to double-think, but here's the difference: I'm actually thinking. I look at each situation and try to evaluate them individually and see what outcomes I can expect from them, and may well come to the conclusion that something is bad in one situation and not bad in another situation. YOU, on the other hand, take event A, try to find something else that you can compare it to (event B), and then use your judgement of event B to decide whether event A is good or bad. One of us is thinking; the other is doing pattern matching.
As far as I can tell, there has been absolutely nothing bad that has resulted from Manning's leaks. From where I sit, life has gone on pretty much unchanged. I fail to see how terrible his actions are when, predictably, none of the doomsday scenarios envisioned by folks like yourself came to pass.
--Jeremy
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are confusing a moral judgment with a legal one. Neither did "bad" things, they both did illegal things. We should as a society ask ourselves, when doing the legal thing is bad, and the illegal thing good, should we not indict the law and pardon the lawbreaker? How you answer that question tells a lot about whether you are an authoritarian minded person, or a person with high moral standards.
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:4, Interesting)
Are you sure you understand what Rule of Law [wikipedia.org] means? It is basically the concept that, in the words of John Adams, of being "a government of laws and not of men." In other words, that no one is above the law, and that is indeed a moral principle and not authoritarian.
I suspect you are reading the term as if it were synonymous with "Law and Order", which is indeed a battle cry of the authoritarian.
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Insightful)
A government of laws and not men is all well and good except when a law is unjust. Then the rule of law is more like the ruly of tyranny. Something that John Adams was not a fan of. When a law is unjust and/or unconstitutional we are all above the law. The law exists to serve men. Men do not exist to serve the law. Laws are not a a substitute for morality. Just because something is illegal does not mean that it is wrong. I don't think the way that the phrase is often used, as a justification for going after Snowden for instance, is a moral principle simply because law has so little to do with actual morality.
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Informative)
And Manning specifically requested a single judge rather than a panel.
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:4, Insightful)
As much as deserve prison everyone that works for NSA and every associated company. Ok, but they are working for the US government. So, would you complain if any of them get a century in prison in any other country of Earth? What if Russia extradite Snowden in exchange of US extraditing anyone spying on russia citizens? That should make things fair, but i don't know how much time would take to send to Russia so much people [salon.com].
And remember what Manning disclosed, basically your country, at your name, doing nice things slaughtering innocents just for fun. If you feel heat in your high ground is because how close is to the earths core.
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, but they are working for the US government.
How is that different from fine folks at Nuremberg?
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Funny)
Brilliant idea for a Gedankenexperiment, in the Classical Einsteinian sense of the word! Let's see if we can cast this, not in the pointer sense of the word, as a current TV reality show:
Herman Göring is up for grabs . . . your suggestions are requested!
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is that different from fine folks at Nuremberg?
The defendants at Nuremberg (they weren't "fine folks") had committed crimes against humanity.
More importantly, they were on the losing side.
Re: (Score:3)
The Holocaust was legal according to German laws, passed by democratically chosen parliament. On the other hand, NSA directly violates the constitution.
So when it comes to following legal principles, the NSA is actually worse. Both boil down to the same issue: might makes right. Ex post facto law against someone you have no jurisdiction whatsoever? Hey, you won the war. A pesky constitution disallowing your abuses? So what the citizens can do against you...
Soviets murdered over three times as many peo
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Insightful)
With fighting corruption landing you serious jail time, I am in no hurry to volunteer. Especially when I have a family to worry about. Much safer to leave, which is what I am planning on in the next few years.
But when you agree to join the military and have a security clearance you make promises to protect that information. With your life, if necessary.
Tell that to international war crimes courts and see how far it gets you. Of course, Manning was a private with no serious decision making authority, so he would be safe from that. But this attitude you mentioned doesn't stand up to even recent historical precedent. You have a moral human duty, as determined by international courts even , to not be complicit in the slaughter of civilians.
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Insightful)
You also swear an oath to defend the constitution from all enemies. If you feel that your oath to protect papers violates your oath to defend the constitution which do you go with?
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Insightful)
"As an ex-military member who held a security clearance, I'm glad he'll likely get prison time. Yes the system is corrupt. Yes he had other avenues that may not have been productive at stopping the corruption. But when you agree to join the military and have a security clearance you make promises to protect that information. With your life, if necessary. He not only went against that promise, he blatantly gave away that information!"
But this ignores the larger question: which "promise" is paramount? His promise to protect that information, or his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States?
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your question is only valid if you honestly believe that Manning read and determined ALL of the 250,000+ documents he released to be proof of a Constitutional violation of some sort. His mass dump of documents shows his motive was less about any duty to the Constitution than it was a blatant FU to the Military & Government that entrusted him with his clearance.
Many here are also making it seem as though he had physical possession of these documents, and failed to protect them. The fact is that he actively mined the data and then dumped it without bothering to know the full scope of what he had released.
For the apparently numerous people here who bear a grudge against the USA of one kind or another and think that this is great due to the embarrassment to the military and Government in general, give it a rest I'm sure we'll still bail your ass out again sometime in the future without expecting any thanks from you. You can call us ignorant for that if you want, it's just in our nature.
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Your question is only valid if you honestly believe that Manning read and determined ALL of the 250,000+ documents he released to be proof of a Constitutional violation of some sort."
Well, you have a point, but I will nitpick a bit. It is not reasonable to expect him to do that, for the simple reason that it probably wasn't possible. I may or may not agree with the law, but it has to be reasonable.
On the other hand, it might have been reasonable for him to only release those things which he had reviewed, and suspected to be in violation of the Constitution. I am basically agreeing with you, but there is a subtle difference. And maybe that's what you meant.
"The fact is that he actively mined the data..."
Did he? I could be wrong, but I understood that the data was easily and readily available due to the nature of his job. That may be wrong, but that was what I read in the news.
"For the apparently numerous people here who bear a grudge against the USA of one kind or another and think that this is great due to the embarrassment to the military and Government in general, give it a rest I'm sure we'll still bail your ass out again sometime in the future without expecting any thanks from you."
I think it's a great and wonderful embarrassment to the government, too. And I'm a citizen of the United States.
Many of the documents made it very clear that our government was working covertly in ways that were not necessarily in the actual interest of The People of the United States. I applaud those revelations.
Remember that real treason is disloyalty to your country and your people, not disobedience toward your government. That was the fundamental error made by the people who brought the Nazis to power.
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Interesting)
You could just as easily argue that his mass dump of the documents shows that his motive was to do his duty to the constitution:
Therefore, short of finding a few thousand other people in the military who were all willing to similarly stick their necks out, the only way he could fulfill his perceived duty to reveal those abuses was to mass release the documents to a neutral third party (the press) with adequate resources (people and time) to review them in a timely manner.
Based on that, I would argue that the only questions that can reasonably be asked are whether he had a duty to tell the world about these abuses, and whether that duty trumped his duty to keep military secrets. All other questions are meaningless.
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Informative)
Most of the people arguing for manning have failed to defend the mass dumping of *all* that information.
[...] He didn't need to dump 250k of docs to make his point.
Manning's defenders don't don't defend it because it Manning didn't do it. He didn't do a mass dump. He released documents to news organizations so those organization would vet them and release only what was proper to be released. That was the responsible thing to do under the circumstances.
It's true that one of those organizations screwed up and released a private key that let everyone see all the documents but that was clearly not Manning's fault. No one defends that mistake. No one thinks it was right for all the documents to be released to the public.
As a practical matter, it would have been impossible for Manning to do it much differently. Once the leaks started, his access would soon be terminated. He knew for sure a lot of the information was damning. He scooped up more than he could personally vet and gave it to people who were in a better position to do the vetting. That's exactly the way it is supposed to be done.
You might want to try to blame Manning for choosing the wrong people to trust. Since most of the main stream media have stopped doing their jobs as journalist and have instead become sycophants to the people in power, Manning did not have a wide range of choice about whom to trust with his information.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"THE LAW OF THE LAND declares that some people are only 3/5ths of a person. And women need not apply... Its a shitty document in places. We've done our best to patch it up in places, but it could really use more amending. However that's a long and time consuming process. In the event that time is of the essence, and following it would violate your own moral code to follow the law, you violate the law."
While I don't disagree with you absolutely, I think you are taking THIS out of context.
The "3/5 of a person" bit was only a bow to the reality of their time. If the founders had tried to abolish slavery via the Constitution, it would never have been ratified. It might never even have gotten off the floor.
On the other hand, they deserve credit for wording the rest of it such that it did, in fact, support equality across the board. This left open ground for equality when society grew up a little bit.
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm still waiting on the Dick Cheney/Halliburton no-bid-contract, because they were the only company (very mysteriously) prepared to be able to provide all services in Iraq. There's corruption. Manning is merely a cog in that giant mechanism.
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do you have to pick one? Can't you "fight" both?
THANK YOU for being able to see the difference between what's truly wrong, and what offends partisan sensibilities.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:4, Insightful)
In case anyone was wondering about those numbers, it was about $0.5 billion to Solyndra vs $7 billion to Halliburton.
Solyndra received a $535 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee before going bankrupt. Under the Solyndra restructuring plan, the government is projected to recoup 19 percent on $142.8 million of the loan and nothing on the remaining $385 million.[19] Additionally, Solyndra received a $25.1 million tax break from California's Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority.
In the run-up to the Iraq war, Halliburton was awarded a $7 billion contract for which 'unusually' only Halliburton was allowed to bid.
Solyndra failed because it couldn't compete with China who, arguably, dumped solar cells to kill such competition. Halliburton on the other hand, is a war profiteer that sent their CEO into politics to secure a contract.
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is bullcrap.
But when you agree to join the military and have a security clearance you make promises to protect that information. With your life, if necessary.
You would die protecting the US government from having its citizens realize that the military is murdering civilians for fun and profit? You really are an idiot and the US is lucky to have folks like you with security clearance.
Take action, go to your congressmen, get out there and vote, explain to others where the corruption is and convince them not to continue to vote for those people that are corrupt.
The American people did vote. They voted for a candidate that explicitly promised the closing of Guantanamo and an end to an unjust war. Instead what they got was more murder and a president that defends the massive spying aparatus. So who are we supposed to vote for? Manning is on the side of the US citizen. Neither party is, and the military certainly is not. You're on the wrong side of history.
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Informative)
The American people did vote. They voted for a candidate that explicitly promised the closing of Guantanamo and an end to an unjust war.
Don't forget he also promised to protect whistleblowers.
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Interesting)
" I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
What happens when the first half is at odds with the second?
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm absolutely certain they didn't pick the ordering of those by accident.
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Insightful)
But when you agree to join the military and have a security clearance you make promises to protect that information. With your life, if necessary. He not only went against that promise, he blatantly gave away that information!
So you're saying he should haveJust Followed Orders, right?
May I remind you of something?
Oaths of Enlistment
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Oath for Commissioned Officers
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you, he released a lot of information which exposed the US governments less desirable actions, actions which should be looked at in great depth.
However,my issue with Manning is that he also released a lot of other documents. 250,000 cables, for example.
Now, let's say that he actually went through those cables to determine that they all had some relevance in exposing unfavourable aspects of the US government - lets say that it took 30 seconds to read each cable and make that determination, left pile or right pile, relevant to exposing actions or not, release or not.
That means that if he actually did his due diligence, if he actually ensured that he was only releasing documents worthy of exposing unsavoury actions and nothing else, nothing that didn't actually directly support his reasons for handing the documents over, then he would have had to have spent 86 days solid doing that.
86 days, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week determining if the document should have been released. Assuming he touched nothing other than the 250,000 cables he released.
No one can argue that he did that - he hands over a huge bunch of stuff in which he likely didn't actually know the contents of for a significant proportion. That right there is why I think these verdicts are proper. That's not whistle blowing, that's acting inappropriately for his position and even his intentions.
Yes, he is a whistle blower, and yes he did whistle blow on a lot of things that should have been blown, but he did it in a manner in which he could not reasonably claim he had limited his actions to documents and files that supported his whistle blowing.
His act of legitimate whistle blowing and his act of illegitimate disclosure of unrelated documents are two things that can 100% be dealt with separately.
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Informative)
I agree with you, he released a lot of information which exposed the US governments less desirable actions, actions which should be looked at in great depth.
However,my issue with Manning is that he also released a lot of other documents. 250,000 cables, for example.
Those diplomatic cables had some of the most damning material!
Did you miss the one where US taxpayer's money is being funneled through Dyncorp to purchase little boy sex slaves on the behalf of the US military as party favors for Afghan warlords? And this is similar to their behavior in Bosnia in 1999. So FYI, the US has a department for buying and selling sex-slaves. No, it doesn't really matter that it's a separate company.
That's the most vile one I know of off the top of my head. There's also evidence that Monsanto and Pfizer use US diplomats to badger governments so they get out of lawsuits. And Monsanto is just as evil as you'd expect. Damn straight this should be "looked at in depth" and then people should be thrown in prison for life. And it makes Manning look like a true patriot. We've GOT to fix this. We HAVE to be the good guys.
Seriously, if this is news to you, GO READ IT [wikipedia.org].
Hey, I get what you're saying. That he shouldn't have just leaked all this information without making sure it wasn't endangering anyone. And that's a mountain of work. So thank goodness that he went to a professional leaking site like Wikileaks to handle it all. (Too bad they trusted Guardian journalist David Leigh with the encryption key. He fucked up and it all got released underacted after about a year.)
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Insightful)
But when you agree to join the military and have a security clearance you make promises to ...
.. to cover up rednecks in a chopper murdering children because MURICA FUCK YEAH!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apparently it is now (has always been?) in vogue to criticize America for things that never actually happened. If you took time to actually understand the issue, the "collateral murder" video doesnt show any children being killed. The (2?) injured children were transferred to a US military hospital for a day before being released to an Iraqi hospital.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike [wikipedia.org]
Now go forth, and try to keep the uninformed BS to a minimum.
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Interesting)
...for the crimes that he's convicted of.
When leaks like this one happen, a lot of attention and effort is spent on punishing the leaker, but we seldom hear about punishment for those that should have protected the data. Why did Manning not only have access to this sensitive data, but was able to download it and walk it out of the office?
In my company, the receptionist isn't supposed to tell anyone what's in our sensitive financial documents and really has no reason to read them. So he can't - his login doesn't have access to those files and if he persists in trying to get access, his username will come up in IPS alerts.
While I suppose it's publicly comforting to go after the leakers once they are caught, what about the spies that steal the data and hand it over quietly to their keepers? If the data is so easy to access that an Army Private can walk in and download thousands of documents, does anyone really think that spies from other nations aren't doing the same thing? The Army should thank Manning for exposing their security flaws.
The same applies to Snowden - he shouldn't have been able to download thousands of pages of classified documents and walk out with them unnoticed.
So who's getting fired over lax security?
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Informative)
When leaks like this one happen, a lot of attention and effort is spent on punishing the leaker, but we seldom hear about punishment for those that should have protected the data.
Army disciplined 15 over Bradley Manning and Wikileaks [politico.com]
The U.S. Army discliplined 15 people as a result of an internal investigation into the decisions and failures that put Pvt. Bradley Manning in a position to download and leak thousands of classified military reports and diplomatic cables he allegedly provided to WikiLeaks, an Army spokesman said Wednesday.
At least one non-commissioned officer was reduced in rank for dereliction of duty, according a legal filing made public by Manning's defense over the weekend.
--------
Why did Manning not only have access to this sensitive data, but was able to download it and walk it out of the office?
In my company, the receptionist isn't supposed to tell anyone what's in our sensitive financial documents and really has no reason to read them. So he can't - his login doesn't have access to those files and if he persists in trying to get access, his username will come up in IPS alerts.
As an analyst that prepared reports he needed access to data. The network apparently wasn't properly prepared and certified for use. There probably should have been better controls for sharing different stacks of data, but the nature of counter-insurgency warfare would tend to press against some of them at some level.
The failings of the people managing the network don't excuse Manning's data breach.
The Army should thank Manning for exposing their security flaws. ... The same applies to Snowden ...
I think that might be worth considering if you can do the same following your house being burglarized, your car stolen, and your bank account emptied ... in separate events.
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:4, Informative)
The U.S. Army discliplined 15 people as a result of an internal investigation into the decisions and failures that put Pvt. Bradley Manning in a position to download and leak thousands of classified military reports and diplomatic cables he allegedly provided to WikiLeaks, an Army spokesman said Wednesday.
At least one non-commissioned officer was reduced in rank for dereliction of duty, according a legal filing made public by Manning's defense over the weekend.
So one officer lost rank, 14 others had some non-specified administrative punishment when through their action (or inaction) they allowed a serious intelligence leak? And the only leak they *know* about was the one from Manning, who knows how many other analysts walked out with data but didn't release it to the public?
As an analyst that prepared reports he needed access to data. The network apparently wasn't properly prepared and certified for use. There probably should have been better controls for sharing different stacks of data, but the nature of counter-insurgency warfare would tend to press against some of them at some level.
Doesn't the leak show that there definitely should have been better controls?
The Army should thank Manning for exposing their security flaws. ... The same applies to Snowden ...
I think that might be worth considering if you can do the same following your house being burglarized, your car stolen, and your bank account emptied ... in separate events.
If my house staff found a hole in the back of my safe and some of them have been been slipping 20 dollar bills out of the safe for years, I'd be pretty thankful when my maid got busted while trying to deposit her stolen cash in the bank, revealing the hole to me so I could stop the leak.
I'd still be mad at her, but glad she got caught since it exposed the security flaw.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Interesting)
>Both Snowden and Manning took oaths with a clear understanding that they would be severely penalized if they violated that trust.
If the government is relying on an *oath* to protect my data, then I'm even more outraged that they have so much of my data.
Outside of a court, an oath means nothing - it's as valuable as a double-super pinky swear. The government wants me to believe that terrorists are out to kill me even if it means killing themselves, but at the same time, I'm supposed to believe that an oath is going to protect my data as well as national secrets because no evildoer would swear on god that they won't do something bad?
Data security is not cheap (in implementation costs or labor), but if we're supposed to believe that having this data out in the wild could be compromising our national security, isn't it worth securing the data? Fort Knox doesn't leave piles of gold around the complex and just rely on staff to promise not to take it - they have serious security protocols that limit access to the gold and don't let any single person in a position where they could steal it, even if it makes working there less efficient.
It's unfortunate they didn't use a more legitimate whistle-blowing channel - they've thrown away their lives.
When those that are collecting the data are willing to outright lie about it to congress, and even those in congress that knew about the data collection are still defending it, what is the legitimate whistle-blowing channel that will let the public know what's going on?
Re: (Score:3)
And after the pinky swear there's jail time. At some point you have to either trust some people or use robots. It's like asking someone to watch your kid or your house -- you assume they wont kidnap your kid or steal your stuff - but in the end, you're running on faith once you're on down the road.
You don't fix government or the law by circumventing it, just like you don't fix murder by taking your own personal vengeance on the killer. Do you think Mr. Manning looked at each of those cables and decided whic
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Manning probably conspired with Assange to get the information to Wikileaks. Wikileaks made the information available to anyone that wanted it, including the Taliban and al Qaida. The Taliban and al Qaida are the enemy, not the US public and international press. The Taliban stated that they were using the information to hunt down informants. That is where the charge of "aiding the enemy" came from.
That is a more useful explanation than your troll.
Re: (Score:3)
The judge obviously disagreed with that reasoning which is good because it is a load of horse shit.
This all sounds slightly familiar... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure Julian Assange could do double duty as 'Face' and 'Howling mad Murdoch'
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Insightful)
What crimes were those? Oh that's right, even though thousands of documents have been circling the internet for years now, not a single one implicates the government of wrongdoing, just business-as-usual borderline "unethical" stuff that they do so we can sleep in warm beds and work in cushy offices. Corruption charges?! Corruption is our protection. Corruption keeps us safe and warm. Corruption is why you and I are prancing around in here instead of fighting over scraps of meat out in the streets. Corruption is why we win.
Actually, corruption is why our economy and governmental systems are going into the toilet. I understand that the American empire and my material excess is made possible by corrupt practices. But really, it's a deal with the Devil.
As we are seeing, the instruments and methods used to enforce American wishes abroad are slowly being brought home for use in the US. The people doing terrible things around the world in order to bring us cheap oil and pliant foreign governments don't actually care about you or me. They care about the large businesses whose interests they advance. They work for the Elite. They only care about us as far as we can be exploited to buy things and vote for the right people.
Personally, I think they can put their "deal" where the sun don't shine. If my prosperity is bought with the blood of the poor and deluded, I don't want it. But I don't make the rules and I have seen what happens to those who push back too hard. But I also know that those who spend too long between a rock and a hard place get crushed.
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:5, Informative)
Right, shooting civilians (including their children) who come to help others who have aready been shot (including an accredited journalist) is "just business-as-usual borderline 'unethical'".
Let me phrase that differently: "War is Hell". It's an ugly business, and always has been. Compared to civilian causalities and treatment of "enemy" civilians in any previous wars we've done quite well this century.
In the incidents I've seen, the guys pulling the trigger were following the rules of engagement. The ROE are designed to balance the risk to soldiers against the risk of civilian casualties. The balance will never be "no civilian casualties", and most people in a war zone go out of their way to be clear they're not part of any conflict. Helping enemy combatants while the fight goes on makes you one, and misunderstandings are easy on both sides when the combatants don't wear uniforms. The soldiers can't be sure who's an enemy, the civilians can't always guess that someone who was just injured is being seen as an enemy, and so on.
The best possible thing for the safety of civilians is to ensure both sides wear uniforms, as required by just about every treaty since the idea of uniforms happened. Failing that, the best you can hope for is that the ROE gives reasonable consideration for civilians (and ours do), and that the soldiers follow the ROE and are punished when they don't (also true).
All I saw from the "Manning videos" was "man, war still sucks, don't have any illusions of a video game war". The video was shocking, but not evidence of any scandal.
Re:NSA doesn't like the system it created??? (Score:4, Insightful)
All I saw from the "Manning videos" was "man, war still sucks, don't have any illusions of a video game war". The video was shocking, but not evidence of any scandal.
It was a while back, but I thought the scandal wasn't so much in what happened, but in covering it up after the fact.
I guess Snowden saved Manning's life then. (Score:5, Interesting)
Aiding the enemy carries the death penalty, but they can't really murder Manning if they want Snowden extradited, can they?
Re:I guess Snowden saved Manning's life then. (Score:4, Insightful)
No one thought he was going to get the death penalty. I'd have been surprised if he got life even. However, 20 to 30? Maybe. I'm thinking 5-10 years.
That's also what I would think Julian Assange would get if the Federal Government got their hands on him.
And I don't think Russia has a problem with the death penalty in extradition cases.
Re:I guess Snowden saved Manning's life then. (Score:5, Insightful)
The U.S. government isn't looking to kill them, they mainly want two things:
1) To silence them
2) To send a clear message to any other would-be heroes about what happens to whistleblowers who embarrass the U.S. government
Re: (Score:3)
I would add a 3rd reason ... it's in everyone's best interest. The death penalty removes any motivation to cooperate in revealing the extent of the treason. There also may be more questions later on.
Re:I guess Snowden saved Manning's life then. (Score:5, Insightful)
>Do we really want a military full of people who think it's okay to give away millions of pieces of data whenever and for whatever?
Yes, when the military is committing illegals acts and violating the constitution. In those cases it is other people who should go to jail.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that's not what happened, there are several ways to report violations that are legal and secure, and even anonymous.
Name them.
I hear this excuse a lot, but to date not a soul has managed to provide any examples of other venues that would A) have been equally or more effective at bringing these events to the public's attention, and B) protected Manning from the persecution and downright criminal treatment he's faced the last 3 years or so.
Re:I guess Snowden saved Manning's life then. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bradley Manning, no matter where his heart was, committed treason
Not according the judge in his case.
Do we really want a military full of people who think it's okay to give away millions of pieces of data whenever and for whatever?
Yes. And furthermore we want a much, much smaller military than we currently have.
Re:I guess Snowden saved Manning's life then. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I guess Snowden saved Manning's life then. (Score:4, Insightful)
I did not. I hate when some jackass statist "news" conglomerate insists on showing me some retarded film instead of giving me the words to read for myself.
I did, however, do a bit of my own research, and found this article, [defense.gov] in which Gen. Alexander repeatedly states "we have [concrete] proof that Snowden's actions have helped terrorists/hurt America blah blah blah," Yet I noticed a stark absence of the actual "proof" he claims to have.
Reminds me of one of my uncle's, a psychologically diagnosed pathological liar; always claims to know the information you want, and always has some bullshit excuse on why he can't tell it to you.
Only a child or invalid would accept "We have the information to prove our claim, but we can't show it to you" as a legitimate response.
Or a sucker.
Speaking of which, I have a lovely piece of property spanning the East River in NY, NY, that would be a perfect investment opportunity for you...
Re: (Score:3)
A life sentence is probably what Snowden is looking at.
No. What Snowden is looking at is exile. He's in a country with no extradition treaty with the US. There is no reason to believe he will end up back in the US at any point. That must really bother you.
Re: (Score:3)
John Walker and Robert Hanssen, sold military secrets and the identities of agents working for the U.S. to the Soviet Union. Manning and Snowden didn't sell anything to anyone. They didn't expose the identities of agents who were working for the U.S. They didn't sell information about sensitive military technology such as submarine detection sensors.
Real spies don't go public with their information or their identities.
had to think about it... (Score:3)
I can't disagree here, but I look at it a bit differently I guess since I worked in journalism.
They don't control what 'the media' does or how it reacts to unfolding events and they can't be expected to be experts at media relations (even if they are narcissists to varying degrees).
However, 'the media' is definitely part of the military/industrial/illuminati complex...whole companies with va
ramifications (Score:4, Insightful)
Since he was acquitted of the charge, isn't that particular kind of potential ramification now less dire? It doesn't prove that the government will never be able to overreach in that manner, but the fact that they couldn't get a conviction on that charge here, even in a military court and little dispute about the underlying facts of document release, suggests that it won't be that easy.
Re:ramifications (Score:4, Insightful)
"Aiding the Enemy" was always going to be a bit of a stretch here. The documents were embarrassing, but I'd have to agree that, in the end, he wasn't actually trying to help al-Qaeda. My biggest problem with him is that, in fact, he released so much that I'd have to call him on his statement that he could have had any idea that they would be harmless. His action was more reckless than malicious.
He broke the law and I don't personally like what he did. He's definitely guilty of misusing his clearance and releasing materials he was trusted to keep secret. There will need to be a reckoning for that. If he feels he did the right thing, well and good. Perhaps he will be able to sleep well at night and even get a pardon. I just don't think that it's an action to be encouraged. There must be a better way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. The proper way of airing the government's dirty laundry is through the official channel, i.e., the government.
You're so fucking obedient to a symbol and a flag that you think the rules of nebulous "authority" figures and structures and systems are more important than the supposed reasons those rules were put in place to begin with. You'd defend keeping government secrets that show how they make us unsafe even though the purpose of government is supposedly to grant us some safety.
Re: (Score:3)
I honestly don't see what Manning released that made me "safer". Or served my interests in any way. Or those of the people of the United States.
Snowden... I think you could make an argument since it affects citizens, but even that program was never presented with a list of things where it was used to harm citizens, it has always been just a "hey look at this stuff they could do!" In no way do I think the action he took was the only one he could have taken. It may well have been the quickest and certainly the most dramatic method, but there is a price for doing it that way. I hope it was worth it.
it would have made you safer if they had done any actions to stop the emberrassing shit released in them. if they would for example review their internal processes to agree to international law, international declarations and agreements and stop trying to affect politics in ways which they actually for a fact know to be "wrong" and "unfair".
otoh you know if you're going to tell something to the cia or american representative there's a very good chance that some fucking 5000 nobodies are going to be reading
Re:ramifications (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/12/bradley-manning-tapes-own-words [theguardian.com]
Re:ramifications (Score:4, Interesting)
Since he was acquitted of the charge, isn't that particular kind of potential ramification now less dire? It doesn't prove that the government will never be able to overreach in that manner, but the fact that they couldn't get a conviction on that charge here, even in a military court and little dispute about the underlying facts of document release, suggests that it won't be that easy.
Agreed, the summary was over-reaching.
Its almost impossible to convict Journalists in this day and age of anything related to espionage.
Still when this administration Taps Reporters phones [thegatewaypundit.com] and even taps Congressional Phones [washingtonsblog.com] we are pretty close to a police state where you dare not even complain to your Congressman any more.
They don't go after the congressmen or the journalist, just the people they talk to. (Or so they say).
Re:ramifications (Score:5, Insightful)
He gave information that could help the American people make better informed decisions regarding their governance. I think that counts as aiding an enemy of the state at this point.
Not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
There wasn't much question of what he had done - he admitted to a number of charges as it was. At the moment he could be facing up to 130 years in prison minus ~200 days from part of his pretrial confinement found to be excessive
Snowden would probably be looking at a similar outcome.
Hard to say what, if any, impact this could possibly have on any charges that might be filed involving Assange.
Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I never wrote anything about Snowden being subject to the UCMJ.
Snowden, like Manning, is likely to face charges for espionage, theft, and computer fraud. You do know that civilians can be charged with that, right? No UCMJ required.
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, he owes no duty to the USA. He has no allegiance to the USA. His actions did not take place on US soil. He did not gather the documents from the USA. He did not violate the confidentiality of the documents (confidentiality was broken by Manning). There is no connection between his actions and the USA.
IMHO, Assange should not face any charges.
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Does Sharia law apply to people not living in a Muslim country?
I wonder what the charge was (Score:3, Insightful)
For those that lied to Congress (Clapper & Alexander)?
Same system as the Mafia... (Score:5, Insightful)
Talk to anybody outside, get tortured and killed. They have not quite figured out how to implement that time-tested approach fully, but torture they already do. If "by their methods you shall recognize them" has any truth to it, this makes the nature of the current US administration quite clear.
Seriously, if what you do is to horrible and repulsive that people inside your organization are willing to risk considerable punishment to leak them, then maybe the things you are doing are wrong and you need to stop?
Befehl ist Befehl (Score:5, Insightful)
If I look at this case, it returns to the old Prussian adage "Befehl ist Befehl".
If you break the rules, you will be severely punished, and there is no excuse. No own responsibility, no greater good, just do what you are told, no matter what.
I don't think I have to explain you what that can lead to......
Re: (Score:3)
If you break the rules, you will be severely punished, and there is no excuse.
Sometimes, it's worth it. It all depends on who is breaking the rules, which rule is being broken, the reasons behind breaking the rules, and the punishment. Early Christianity is filled with accounts of martyrdom. It continues today in Islam.
In fact, the U.S. was founded on breaking the rules. And the punishment for those rules broken wasn't going to be torture and some jail time. It was going to be torture followed closely by death.
Remember that Nathan Hale was hung. Thoreau went to jail for his act of ci
Re: (Score:3)
For those of you you missed the point: "Befehl ist Befehl" translates to "Orders are orders" and the area previously occupied by the nation of Prussia is now principally occupied by Germany. Further reading can be found here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Re: (Score:3)
The Wehrmacht and the SS also were military. Yet they were (and IMHO rightly so) convicted by the Neurenburg trials for this attitude.
So I think my analogy was appropriate .
Punitive justice (Score:5, Insightful)
When does the US military go on trial for the exposed war crimes?
Re:Punitive justice (Score:5, Funny)
Great infographic (Score:5, Informative)
Espionage vs. Journalism (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but stealing classified information and disseminating it to the public is not "investigative journalism."
Ironic..... (Score:4, Interesting)
What's The Point? (Score:3)
Just asking.
Convicted of violation of the Espionage Act? (Score:5, Interesting)
Convicted of violation of the Espionage Act? Ah, well then we should revise said act to retroactively apply exemption to actions which do not aide the enemy. For, if they do not aide the enemy, then they aide the ally or no one. Surely we can't be throwing people in jail for helping us?
Proposed solution to these leaks (Score:3, Interesting)
I want to see publicly nominated and vetted judges sitting on a board to review classified procedures and actions for their constitutionality. The proceedings can be secret, but the number of cases overturned and left standing should be made public. It may be a pipe dream, but I think this would go a long way to restoring the people's trust in their government by restoring the accountability that was supposed to be there in the first place.
Re:He'll still die in Jail (Score:5, Funny)
Incredible (Score:5, Insightful)
A man alerts you to how you're being ripped off by the people who claim to be working for you, and you take the side of the people ripping you off.
It's amazing how powerful the appeal to coercive authority can be. Nobody would ever knowingly accept being ripped off by a private party. In the private sector, breach of contract results in serious conseqences. Yet somehow, coercive authority gets a free pass. This is a perfect example of how indoctrination works. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Incredible (Score:5, Informative)
You haven't reviewed any of the material, have you.
You probably haven't even looked at the video they deliberately mislabeled "collateral murder". (which, by the way, is almost certainly clearer for you on your computer than the pilot had on their little 4" screen in the apache)
When that video came out I contacted a guy I know who happens to be an Apache pilot (but who wasn't in Iraq at that time). He quickly pointed out that it was missing a bunch of context because at that time the insurgents had been trying to score an apache kill, so the army was holding apaches back unless there was confirmed need for them (i.e. the ground troops were already engaged with the enemy). So the BS story that there weren't any insurgents around doesn't fly. And for the reporter whose died because his lens looked like an RPG, and he moved like a guy carrying an RPG, he agreeed that it's unfortunate but said with knowledge of what was happening and what the screen showed, he'd have pulled the trigger too.
Re:Incredible (Score:5, Insightful)
You probably haven't even looked at the video they deliberately mislabeled "collateral murder". (which, by the way, is almost certainly clearer for you on your computer than the pilot had on their little 4" screen in the apache)
It sounds to me like you are the one who hasn't looked at the video. [collateralmurder.com] Try watching it again. The long version. And notice how the helicopter pilot fires on unarmed innocent people including children who clearly are not carrying any weapons. It is true that there was a guy with a camera. And no it didn't look like a rocket launcher. And there were a couple of guys some distance away from the main group who were carrying what may have been rifles, probably guards to try to protect the rest of the people in a war zone.
But that does not excuse a cold blooded massacre of unarmed civilians including children. They were even cheering and celebrating as they machine gunned innocent children. If they weren't sure they could have moved closer and waited to see if the two guys with rifles fired at them. Or at least picked up their rifles (assuming they actually were rifles) to aim at them.
That video is probably the most disgusting thing I have ever watched. It is almost impossible for me to watch the whole thing in fact. I just get too angry. Those guys should be executed. I would happily do it myself. Not only have they not been reprimanded. Their names haven't even been released. That is just wrong. Very, very wrong. They committed serious war crimes. As clear cut as any war crimes. Those particular guys were truly no better than Nazis, and I say this as a jew with ancestors in Poland.
I suppose I was naive, but I never really believed that our military behaved like that. Like vicious animals killing with enjoyment and laughing about it. Showing no honor or mercy even to children. And that is the importance of this video and in my view what really makes Manning a hero. That video needed to be released. Manning has given his life to get that video, among other things, out into the open.
I can tell you one thing. After watching that video it will be a cold day in hell before I ever approve of us going to war for any reason except to directly defend ourselves here on US territory. Between that video and the revelation of what was going on at Abu Ghraib we have shown that we cannot fight with honor. We cannot be trusted to fight a war without senseless massacres and god only knows what kind of sick war crimes. We truly are just as bad or even worse than what even the most anti-American critics have always claimed.
He quickly pointed out that it was missing a bunch of context because at that time the insurgents had been trying to score an apache kill, so the army was holding apaches back unless there was confirmed need for them
In what possible way is that supposed to excuse a massacre of mostly unarmed civilians? Those were not insurgents. They shot at least one child and two guys from Reuters. This was a clear case of massacre an entire crowd of people first. Ask questions later. This is a crime of coward chicken-hawk murderers too afraid to get close enough to their victims to confirm that they really are enemies actively engaging in combat with them. Those are some evil fucks.
Re:Incredible (Score:4, Informative)
They shot at least one child [...]
Just to add a bit to this, the verb "shot" is scarcely appropriate, because the 30mm shells the Apache fired are more like HE grenades than bullets (in both scale and effect). Totally disgusting.
Re:Incredible (Score:4, Informative)
Try to post a screen gab that shows children in the helicopter footage.
If you watch the short version they are labeled on screen. If you watch the long version the little girl / first child is mentioned at 13:29, 17:20, and 18:18 where they finally seem to realize that the little girl who was shot in the stomach was not the only wounded child. They explicitly mention that there were two wounded children at 27:38. The second child can be seen being carried to an APC by a soldier at 23:10 of the long version. The first child / little girl is only seen briefly when she is carried from the van full of bodies, but she is on the video.
Re:Incredible (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is what this whole thing is about. A democracy needs to know how the people it voted into office are doing. If the government makes it all top secret and you can only see videos of the candidates hugging puppies, then how do you know you voted correctly? How will you vote for the best candidate if performance is hidden by journalists to afraid to tell the truth?
Re:Incredible (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe that should have been a clue for them to move closer before simply firing machine guns into a small crowd who were not firing at them. Those guys should be known as the Butchers of Baghdad.
Re:Should have been convicted on all counts (Score:5, Insightful)
If the reporters for the Washington Post and New York Times whom he initially approached [gawker.com] had done their fucking jobs, he would never have went to WikiLeaks. The reason he had to release the whole cache is because no journalist gatekeeper would take him seriously (the way Glenn Greenwald did with Snowden).
Re:Should have been convicted on all counts (Score:5, Informative)
He didn't even release the whole cache. Some reporter let slip the password for the encrypted file. http://boingboing.net/2011/08/31/wikileaks-guardian-journalist-negligently-published-password-to-unredacted-cables.html [boingboing.net]
Re:Should have been convicted on all counts (Score:4, Informative)
He had no business leaking what he did.
Yes he did [collateralmurder.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I was really surprised about Obama getting the peace prize... wasn't Linus Torvalds nominated at some point? I think he is more deserving.