Soldier who leaked documents to wikileaks

[MrsKellyPierce]

Defense is he has Gender Dysphoria and should have never been sent over to war to be privy to such documents...as if being a transsexual makes you leak secret documents...

[Mayrah]

What a joke

[MrsKellyPierce]

Right? I sure hope they have 2 or 3 psychologist testimonies to prove this claim...

[BellaBellucci]

Actually, the CIA barred gays and lesbians, both in and out of the closet for decades because they felt they had too much leverage against them from society and were therefore a security risk. I suspect this history will be mentioned in the trial.

~BB~

[MrsKellyPierce]

Actually, the CIA barred gays and lesbians, both in and out of the closet for decades because they felt they had to much leverage against them from society and were therefore a security risk. I suspect this history will be mentioned in the trial.

~BB~
Well it's a good thing he isn't gay/lesbian - he is a transgender supposedly

[Quiet Reflections]

Come on Kelly we all know you girls can't keep secrets.

[BellaBellucci]

Well it's a good thing he isn't gay/lesbian - he is a transgender supposedly

We're at the same place socially that gays and lesbians were when the policy was in effect. Also, if Manning was TG, and the military knew it at the time, then his lawyers are absolutely right in saying that he should have been discharged from service under the military's current policies. This isn't an indictment of trans people unless they make the claim under Section 8, which disallows those who are 'mentally unfit' from service. However, I suspect they'll try to argue DADT instead, which is perfectly valid as of the date of offense.

~BB~

[Jericho]

Come on Kelly we all know you girls can't keep secrets.

QFT!
Try fucking their friend! :hide-1:

[MrsKellyPierce]

We're at the same place socially that gays and lesbians were when the policy was in effect. Also, if Manning was TG, and the military knew it at the time, then his lawyers are absolutely right in saying that he should have been discharged from service under the military's current policies. This isn't an indictment of trans people unless they make the claim under Section 8, which disallows those who are 'mentally unfit' from service. However, I suspect they'll try to argue DADT instead, which is perfectly valid as of the date of offense.

~BB~I think it's a load of rubbish!

[BellaBellucci]

I think it's a load of rubbish!

Is that your expert opinion? :lol:

~BB~

[MrsKellyPierce]

Is that your expert opinion? :lol:

~BB~
Yes even if he did suffere from GID - it doesn't make you leak secret documents..

[BellaBellucci]

Yes even if he did suffere from GID - it doesn't make you leak secret documents..

Again, that's not the argument. And even if it were, Manning's lawyers would simply be using the military's own paranoia against it.

~BB~

[MrsKellyPierce]

Again, that's not the argument. And even if it were, Manning's lawyers would simply be using the military's own paranoia against it.

~BB~
So Bella you are happy he is staining transsexuals with his bull crap?

It just makes us the enemy even more...

[BellaBellucci]

So Bella you are happy he is staining transsexuals with his bull crap?

It just makes us the enemy even more...

Yes. Exactly. I'm ecstatic. You caught me. :rolleyes:

I'm offering analysis, not support of the position.

~BB~

[tsmandy]

Haven't heard this in Mannings defense, but I will say that he's a fucking hero.

[russtafa]

so all transsexuals are traitors .WOW

[BellaBellucci]

so all transsexuals are traitors .WOW

OMG. :yayo:

~BB~

[BluegrassCat]

Haven't heard this in Mannings defense, but I will say that he's a fucking hero.

But this defense makes his actions seem much less heroic. If we accept this defense his behavior wasn't the action of a conscienced whistleblower airing government misdeeds but an emotionally troubled individual who wasn't capable of handling classified material.

[BellaBellucci]

But this defense makes his actions seem much less heroic. If we accept this defense his behavior wasn't the action of a conscienced whistleblower airing government misdeeds but an emotionally troubled individual who wasn't capable of handling classified material.

Precisely.

~BB~

[tsmandy]

so all transsexuals are traitors .WOW

No. Just me. :party:

[russtafa]

will he get shot? that's what happened many years ago"bang"

[tsmandy]

But this defense makes his actions seem much less heroic. If we accept this defense his behavior wasn't the action of a conscienced whistleblower airing government misdeeds but an emotionally troubled individual who wasn't capable of handling classified material.

At this point the kid is probably trying to do anything at all that doesn't involve getting hanged for treason or spending life in prison. After the last year he's probably ready to transition and start over.

Regardless, what has been done cannot be undone. The real question is why is the whistle blower the target of criminal prosecution and not any of the criminals wiki-leaks has exposed?

[onmyknees]

I had not heard about that gender issue either, but his defense attorneys do seem to be floating that balloon. It was common knowledge , and so testified that he was gay. It does seem to complicate things on a number of fronts if his defense team pursues this defense, but their job is to defend their client, by whatever means at their disposal. I understand where Kelly's coming from in that if they do use this as a defense, they'll categorize it as a disorder, and confuse the issue, to be sure.
So there appears to be at least 2 issues at play here .....did he leak secret and top secret documents ? That seems to be fairly obvious, but he'll get his day at a military trial..It's irrelevant weather you and I think these documents were top secret or not, that's the Pentagon, and the State Department's call, and weather or not Bradley Manning knew they were Top Secret.

The second issue is what will they use as his defense. Like an insanity defense, using this gender disorder defense it would appear they're stipulating to the crime, and seeking extenuating circumstances. There's been numerous threads on Bradley Manning the hero versus Bradley Manning the traitor, so I hope we don't re litigate that issue again. All I will say in that regard is that a hero should not be using his sexuality ( or confusion about his gender) to mitigate his offenses, although if I was facing life in Levenworth....I might use whatever I could also. Hell might be a better destination than Levenworth !

[lisaparadise]

I had not heard about that gender issue either, but his defense attorneys do seem to be floating that balloon. It was common knowledge , and so testified that he was gay. It does seem to complicate things on a number of fronts if his defense team pursues this defense, but their job is to defend their client, by whatever means at their disposal. I understand where Kelly's coming from in that if they do use this as a defense, they'll categorize it as a disorder, and confuse the issue, to be sure.
So there appears to be at least 2 issues at play here .....did he leak secret and top secret documents ? That seems to be fairly obvious, but he'll get his day at a military trial..It's irrelevant weather you and I think these documents were top secret or not, that's the Pentagon, and the State Department's call, and weather or not Bradley Manning knew they were Top Secret.

The second issue is what will they use as his defense. Like an insanity defense, using this gender disorder defense it would appear they're stipulating to the crime, and seeking extenuating circumstances. There's been numerous threads on Bradley Manning the hero versus Bradley Manning the traitor, so I hope we don't re litigate that issue again. All I will say in that regard is that a hero should not be using his sexuality ( or confusion about his gender) to mitigate his offenses, although if I was facing life in Levenworth....I might use whatever I could also. Hell might be a better destination than Levenworth !the fact is this piece of shit leaked unautherized documents so i say hang the little fag in town sqaure to entertain me during half time at the superbowl.

[lisaparadise]

Haven't heard this in Mannings defense, but I will say that he's a fucking hero.and i will say your a fucking idiot.

[BellaBellucci]

and i will say your a fucking idiot.


the fact is this piece of shit leaked unautherized documents so i say hang the little fag in town sqaure to entertain me during half time at the superbowl.

Brilliant. Continue to believe that the government should have absolute power over what is and is not a secret. :rolleyes:

Everybody Loves Hypnotoad - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv9TqWDm_yU)

~BB~

[onmyknees]

the fact is this piece of shit leaked unautherized documents so i say hang the little fag in town sqaure to entertain me during half time at the superbowl.


I agree that recent Super Bowl half time shows suck, but I'm not sure the NFL would deem that "family appropriate viewing" ...lmao

[lisaparadise]

Brilliant. Continue to believe that the government should have absolute power over what is and is not a secret. :rolleyes:

Everybody Loves Hypnotoad - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv9TqWDm_yU)

~BB~if you believe that then i feel sorry for you bella.not everything is a conspiracy.if i tell you something in private i dont expect you to blab it now times that by a million and complete with governing rules regulations and law and thats what your dealing with.he broke the law and the fact that this fagot uses trans as a defence burns my ass to no end.

[lisaparadise]

I agree that recent Super Bowl half time shows suck, but I'm not sure the NFL would deem that "family appropriate viewing" ...lmaooh come on its airing on the FOX network isnt it? lol

[onmyknees]

oh come on its airing on the FOX network isnt it? lol


Point Taken !!!!!! :salad

[BellaBellucci]

if you believe that then i feel sorry for you bella.not everything is a conspiracy.if i tell you something in private i dont expect you to blab it now times that by a million and complete with governing rules regulations and law and thats what your dealing with.he broke the law and the fact that this fagot uses trans as a defence burns my ass to no end.

We have a law here in our country that 'guarantee(s) the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies.' Why don't diplomats have to adhere to such transparency if they're truly acting in the interests of the people? Most of the documents released were diplomatic 'cables,' which is to say they were 'private' communiques between diplomats and the State Department.

Brown Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Act)

It's not like he sold the plans for our next-gen weapons to one of our enemies. Hell, what Oliver North did was infinitely worse than what Manning did.

~BB~

[russtafa]

there is nothing like seeing someone doing suspended air boogie

[BellaBellucci]

JFK - Secrecy is Repugnant (1961 Speech) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpmi7dBet0c)

~BB~

[lisaparadise]

We have a law here in our country that 'guarantee(s) the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies.' Why don't diplomats have to adhere to such transparency if they're truly acting in the interests of the people? Most of the documents released were diplomatic 'cables,' which is to say they were 'private' communiques between diplomats and the State Department.

Brown Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Act)

It's not like he sold the plans for our next-gen weapons to one of our enemies. Hell, what Oliver North did was a infinitely worse than what Manning did.

~BB~your missing the point,its not what he leaked its the fact he broke the law a military law and that can not be tolerated.what if he leaked something he knew nothing about and it turned out to be so secretive that it started another war or terrerist attack how would you feel then? its this kinda stuff that could change history and not in a good way.rethink your position bella your on the wrong side this time.

[BellaBellucci]

what if he leaked something he knew nothing about and it turned out to be so secretive that it started another war or terrerist attack how would you feel then?

Yeah. What if? That's not what happened. The documents in question should be public documents.

What if North gave Iran the bomb instead of a few missles?

~BB~

[lisaparadise]

Yeah. What if? That's not what happened. The documents in question should be public documents.

~BB~says who?we elect people to decide that not you not me or anybody else on this site.you americans have the greatest military on earth im pretty sure they know what there doing.

[BellaBellucci]

says who?we elect people to decide that not you not me or anybody else on this site.you americans have the greatest military on earth im pretty sure they know what there doing.

I don't know about your country, but our elections are pretty much fixed by the military-industrial complex. The problem isn't government or capitalism, but the inextricable links between them.

Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex. - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY)

Vietnam? Iraq? Ring any bells? And your government falls for it hook, line, and sinker every time. :lol:

~BB~

[runningdownthatdream]

says who?we elect people to decide that not you not me or anybody else on this site.you americans have the greatest military on earth im pretty sure they know what there doing.

Seriously? Just in the last 100 years Germany and Italy at one time had elected officials AND substantial armies and look how that turned out because everyone chose to 'just follow orders'. Surprising how easily people are willing to accede to the 'rule of law' especially when laws are frequently enacted without the consensus of the general population. Hell, check Bella's thread from earlier today about SOPA.

In this case, his actions did not result in the fall of the American Empire but it shone a light in places that the great mass of people aren't privy to - although the things that were revealed were being done in the name of the masses. Although he will likely be imprisoned for life for what he did, ultimately he challenged authority while risking his life and without endangering other lives which is something more of us should have the opportunity to do.

[BellaBellucci]

Seriously? Just in the last 100 years Germany and Italy at one time had elected officials AND substantial armies and look how that turned out because everyone chose to 'just follow orders'. Surprising how easily people are willing to accede to the 'rule of law' especially when laws are frequently enacted without the consensus of the general population. Hell, check Bella's thread from earlier today about SOPA.

I almost went with this argument, but then decided that I like Ike instead. :Bowdown:

~BB~

[tsmandy]

Despots fear the truth. Fact is the wiki leaks cables have shown a light on what most most knew to be true in the first place.

Governments can make examples out of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange but history will continue to unfold and the truth eventually comes out, and when it does there are always consequences.

[Stavros]

Lisa is right to argue that Manning signed a contract with the army and that he violated it; on that narrow point of law he has no real defence.

But you also have to accept that the military itself made what it claimed was secret information available with astonishing ease, it is as embarrassed at this lapse in its own security as it is with the result, Manning is getting treated like a traitor because of the military's own inability to prevent him downloading an entire cache of documents. It seems odd that the military didn't quite understand how contemporary communications technology works, even though they invented most of it. The damning verdict could just be that the operations of the USA in Iraq were a shambles.

More broadly, what proportion of 'stuff' -emails, cables, minutes of meetings- needs to be secret in the first place should also be factored in -governments, armies, corporations like to classify everything as secret -except what they want to say in public- which is why conspiracy theories thrive. However, the fact that the USA like the UK, Australia and so on, have freedom of information acts, means that we should already be able to access much more documentation on government opinions and decisions than we can. If governments did not resist the application of actually existing laws, maybe we would not be having a bizarre discussion on whether or not Manning did what he did because of some hormonal imbalance....

[maxpower]

I don't know about your country, but our elections are pretty much fixed by the military-industrial complex. The problem isn't government or capitalism, but the inextricable links between them.

Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex. - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY)

Vietnam? Iraq? Ring any bells? And your government falls for it hook, line, and sinker every time. :lol:

~BB~


"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful method and goals."

Oops. Good luck finding that here.

[Ben]

Defense is he has Gender Dysphoria and should have never been sent over to war to be privy to such documents...as if being a transsexual makes you leak secret documents...

He has to put up some defense. I mean, he faces life in prison. Or even the death penalty.

Glenn Greenwald Reports on Bradley Manning's Military Pre-Trial Hearing - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHpDs02pu2U)

[onmyknees]

I don't know about your country, but our elections are pretty much fixed by the military-industrial complex. The problem isn't government or capitalism, but the inextricable links between them.

Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex. - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY)

Vietnam? Iraq? Ring any bells? And your government falls for it hook, line, and sinker every time. :lol:

~BB~


Yea...I saw that coming ( the black helicopters and the military industrial complex) I heard Ron Paul has that as his ring tone he loves it so much.


Look...while a discussion about what should be classified and what shouldn't would be constructive in the abstract, when Mr Manning stood in a small room at an undefined location with an American Flag standing in the corner, and raised his right hand and took the military oath, he gave up some of the rights private citizens enjoy. I took the same oath, and lost some of the same privileges, and learned the hard way. He damn sure knew that, and if he didn't he may in fact have mental issues. He does not have the ability or the right, or the privilege to disclose documents the military deems as secret. He's playing under a different set of rules...The Uniform Code of Military Justice and his motives are absolutely irrelevant. It's just that simple. You can attempt to hit the rewind button and ask why any documents are declared Secret and you can make it about gays, or DADT, or gender confusion, or the military industrial complex, or the CIA, but that's all white noise.

[BellaBellucci]

Yea...I saw that coming ( the black helicopters and the military industrial complex) I heard Ron Paul has that as his ring tone he loves it so much.


Look...while a discussion about what should be classified and what shouldn't would be constructive in the abstract, when Mr Manning stood in a small room at an undefined location with an American Flag standing in the corner, and raised his right hand and took the military oath, he gave up some of the rights private citizens enjoy. I took the same oath, and lost some of the same privileges, and learned the hard way. He damn sure knew that, and if he didn't he may in fact have mental issues. He does not have the ability or the right, or the privilege to disclose documents the military deems as secret. He's playing under a different set of rules...The Uniform Code of Military Justice and his motives are absolutely irrelevant. It's just that simple. You can attempt to hit the rewind button and ask why any documents are declared Secret and you can make it about gays, or DADT, or gender confusion, or the military industrial complex, or the CIA, but that's all white noise.

I'm shocked that you actually believe that. :geek:

'I was just following orders... when I gassed all of those Jews.'

~BB~

[Erika1487]

:smh He knew the rules and he decided to break them. I have no pity for this kid what so ever.

[Ben]

Ron Paul in defense of Julian Assange:

Congressman Ron Paul Defends WikiLeaks & Julian Assange - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM20w0jHH8A)

[Ben]

:smh He knew the rules and he decided to break them. I have no pity for this kid what so ever.

What about Daniel Ellsberg? Should he have been thrown in a cage for 35 years? That's what he was facing.

[BellaBellucci]

Ron Paul in defense of Julian Assange:

Congressman Ron Paul Defends WikiLeaks & Julian Assange - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM20w0jHH8A)

Assange is actually the true hero in all of this.

~BB~

[Ben]

Daniel Ellsberg: Manning Won't Get Fair Trial - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53U3BRBJv2M)

[Erika1487]

What about Daniel Ellsberg? Should he have been thrown in a cage for 35 years? That's what he was facing.

Another hippie WTF Ben? Libitards, peacenecks and hippies are the problem not the anwswer.

[onmyknees]

I'm shocked that you actually believe that. :geek:

'I was just following orders... when I gassed all of those Jews.'

~BB~



Don't be shocked. Nice Try, but the UCMJ does make provisions that clearly separate an order such as you describe, and the protocol for dealing with the questioning of such an order. What it does not do is give the authority to a Private First Class to determine on his own what military documents he can disseminate to the press.

I understand your ACLU angle on this, but you're riding the wrong horse here. This guy is no Daniel Ellsberg.
While I may have empathy for what awaits Mr. Manning having been in military brigs, he did what he did......motives aside.

[BellaBellucci]

Don't be shocked. Nice Try, but the UCMJ does make provisions that clearly separate an order such as you describe, and the protocol for dealing with the questioning of such an order. What it does not do is give the authority to a Private First Class to determine on his own what military documents he can disseminate to the press.

Granted. But having a Congressman stand up for you in a floor speech says a lot, too, wouldn't you say? There are extenuating circumstances here. Again, Oliver North did far worse and where is he now? Is he still at Faux News? That little hookup speaks volumes. :lol:


Another hippie WTF Ben? Libitards, peacenecks and hippies are the problem not the anwswer.

One can be for a strong military and still be against the way the military-industrial complex has corrupted the government of the People.

And the term is 'peacenik.' :lol:

~BB~

[Erika1487]

One can be for a strong military and still be against the way the military-industrial complex has corrupted the government of the People.

And the term is 'peacenik.' :lol:

~BB~

I call them all liberal bastards who have been 'tarred with the same brush'

[Ben]

Assange is actually the true hero in all of this.

~BB~

Yes. Assange acted like a decent human being. And Manning put his life quite literally on the line. His treatment has been unusual. Or as P.J. Crowley said: "... stupid."

WikiLeaks' Founder Julian Assange Comments on Bradley Manning Case & US Use of Grand Juries - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1U_7J_uhxk)

[BellaBellucci]

I call them all liberal bastards who have been 'tarred with the same brush'

The more time you spend here, the more I'm convinced that you're a GOP plant. They rejected you for reasons that you consider arbitrary and yet you defend their ideology so zealously. I find it all very sad, but more and more unbelievable by the day. :(

~BB~

[Ben]

Another hippie WTF Ben? Libitards, peacenecks and hippies are the problem not the anwswer.

Ellsberg served in Vietnam. And was quite hawkish in the 50s and early 60s. He changed his tune after his firsthand experience in Vietnam.
And for anyone to be a complete pacifist is absurd. Every country has the right to -- and should -- defend itself.
And I wish Obama would stop saying my role is to defend the country. It isn't. His responsibility is to protect and defend the CONSTITUTION.
And can someone on this site please define liberal and/or conservative. The terms seem to become more meaningless every single day.

[Erika1487]

The more time you spend here, the more I'm convinced that you're a GOP plant. They rejected you for reasons that you consider arbitrary and yet you defend their ideology so zealously. I find it all very sad, but more and more unbelievable by the day. :(

~BB~

Bella I am a social Conservative who hates most liberal ideas. I am by nature angry at the damn world for changes beyond my control. I may dissagree with my fellow republican friends and conservatives over certian social issues but, overall I am pretty cold stone republican. I am far from a towing the party line everyday, but don't confuse me for being a moderate. I am the Ann Coulter of H.A ;)

[BellaBellucci]

Bella I am a social Conservative who hates most liberal ideas. I am by nature angry at the damn world for changes beyond my control. I may dissagree with my fellow republican friends and conservatives over certian social issues but, overall I am pretty cold stone republican. I am far from a towing the party line everyday, but don't confuse my for being a moderate. I am the Ann Coulter of H.A ;)

That was the most self-contradictory drivel I've read from you so far. Well done! You've provided lulz. :dancing:

I hope someday you don't hate yourself so much. Truth.

~BB~

[Ben]

Bella I am a social Conservative who hates most liberal ideas. I am by nature angry at the damn world for changes beyond my control. I may dissagree with my fellow republican friends and conservatives over certian social issues but, overall I am pretty cold stone republican. I am far from a towing the party line everyday, but don't confuse my for being a moderate. I am the Ann Coulter of H.A ;)

A "social Conservative" and you're typing away on THIS SITE?!?!?!? I mean, this site and all that it represents is the antithesis of social conservatism: bisexuality, homosexuality, transgender, PORN....

[onmyknees]

Ellsberg served in Vietnam. And was quite hawkish in the 50s and early 60s. He changed his tune after his firsthand experience in Vietnam.
And for anyone to be a complete pacifist is absurd. Every country has the right to -- and should -- defend itself.
And I wish Obama would stop saying my role is to defend the country. It isn't. His responsibility is to protect and defend the CONSTITUTION.
And can someone on this site please define liberal and/or conservative. The terms seem to become more meaningless every single day.


Ben....not your normal big dicked gurl post...lol. I understand your passion on this, but let me pose a hypothetical, which may not be too far fetched. Let's assume that Manning was nothing more than a disgruntled, malcontent, and his motives were far from the heroic whistle blower that you and others ascribe to him. Let's assume he was frustrated by not being able to express his sexuality, and being a 22 year old was not sure how to reconcile that. Enter Mr. Assange to help him figure that all out, and Mr. Manning becomes a useful idiot, so to speak to further feed either Mr. Assange's bank account, or his ego.
if the motives were less than the purity of a true whistle blower, would you see things differently? Again....I understand motives are irrelevant in a court martial, but I'm curious if they matter to you. You seem to have principals, suppose you find Mr. Assange, and Mr. Manning have none?

[BellaBellucci]

Ben....not your normal big dicked gurl post...lol. I understand your passion on this, but let me pose a hypothetical, which may not be too far fetched. Let's assume that Manning was nothing more than a disgruntled, malcontent, and his motives were far from the heroic whistle blower that you and others ascribe to him. Let's assume he was frustrated by not being able to express his sexuality, and being a 22 year old was not sure how to reconcile that. Enter Mr. Assange to help him figure that all out, and Mr. Manning becomes a useful idiot, so to speak to further feed either Mr. Assange's bank account, or his ego.
if the motives were less than the purity of a true whistle blower, would you see things differently? Again....I understand motives are irrelevant in a court martial, but I'm curious if they matter to you. You seem to have principals, suppose you find Mr. Assange, and Mr. Manning have none?

Smells like desperation.

Assange came this close to being assassinated and Manning will probably spend his life in prison. Yeah, they did it for kicks.

Are you serious with this shit? :?

~BB~

[onmyknees]

Smells like desperation.

Assange came this close to being assassinated and Manning will probably spend his life in prison. Yeah, they did it for kicks.

Are you serious with this shit? :?

~BB~


Get real, and get off that idealistic high horse....it's a long fall.

You're awful fucking presumtious. Now you can get inside the heads of Assange and Manning? You are good. They could use you on the defense team.

Almost none of the famous and infamous espionage cases have to do with purity. The motives are far darker... I'm not suggesting that's the case here, I don't know.... but you're pretty fucking positive it's not. Again.....hero worship as you will, but maybe you should wait for the evidence at trial ?

[Ben]

OMK, here are the chat logs.... (I, actually, don't think it matters. What he did was expose wrongdoings. I think the motivation is immaterial. And it diverts us from what he exposed.
A lot of so-called liberals do believe Manning committed a crime. But the punishment so far has been too harsh -- and the possible sentence [death or life imprisonment] is unjustified.)

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat/

[Quiet Reflections]

The Place he was on trial at is a few miles from my house. It was pretty nuts over there for a while

[Erika1487]

That was the most self-contradictory drivel I've read from you so far. Well done! You've provided lulz. :dancing:

I hope someday you don't hate yourself so much. Truth.

~BB~

Bella I am not going to start a 'tit for tat' over politics. I am proud have help elect people I believe in. I guess now that I am out as trans changed my name & gender I am supposed to throw my beliefs away to support 'the cause' or I am a 'GOP sellout':confused: That about sum it up?


A "social Conservative" and you're typing away on THIS SITE?!?!?!? I mean, this site and all that it represents is the antithesis of social conservatism: bisexuality, homosexuality, transgender, PORN....

Ben... I have morals, I am conservative and I am a transsexual woman #face

[BellaBellucci]

Get real, and get off that idealistic high horse....it's a long fall.

You're awful fucking presumtious. Now you can get inside the heads of Assange and Manning? You are good. They could use you on the defense team.

Almost none of the famous and infamous espionage cases have to do with purity. The motives are far darker... I'm not suggesting that's the case here, I don't know.... but you're pretty fucking positive it's not. Again.....hero worship as you will, but maybe you should wait for the evidence at trial ?

They're not my heroes, but I respect what they did, so who's being presumptuous now? Furthermore, Assange for one knew he'd bear responsibility as WikiLeaks' public face. It's not like he thought he could get away with it. Regardless, he did the right thing.

I'll grant you that there was probably more to Manning's motives than patriotism and that he may have thought that he wouldn't get caught, but if that's the case, then that could go to a potential lack of mental stability, particularly if there was gender confusion involved, and even more so if he was manipulated by Assange (which still is not necessarily self-serving to Assange). Perhaps he knew he couldn't escape his life as a male, so he figured he should sacrifice himself for the greater good, in which case, you can condemn the motive if you like, or not, that's subjective, but it changes nothing about the principles of the matter: why was this information available to him in the first place if it was above his pay-grade, don't we have a right to know what our government does in our name (provided it doesn't breach nation security of course, which the documents did not), and whom did it hurt?

The answer to the first question has yet to be determined, to the second is yes, and to the last is nobody, so why is he in prison and good ol' Ollie is on TV? Where are the prosecutions of the war criminals Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld? Double-standard, much? :?

Any way you look at it, he doesn't deserve the punishment he's received. They're just trying to make an example out of him, and so are some of you.

~BB~

[BellaBellucci]

Bella I am not going to start a 'tit for tat' over politics.

... because I perpetually stomp you in such debates! I don't blame you. I wouldn't want to debate me either. I'm scary good at it. :lol: :lol: :lol:


I guess now that I am out as trans changed my name & gender I am supposed to throw my beliefs away to support 'the cause' or I am a 'GOP sellout':confused: That about sum it up?

Yes. Because they don't believe in your right to exist. :geek:

~BB~

[Ben]

Bella I am not going to start a 'tit for tat' over politics. I am proud have help elect people I believe in. I guess now that I am out as trans changed my name & gender I am supposed to throw my beliefs away to support 'the cause' or I am a 'GOP sellout':confused: That about sum it up?



Ben... I have morals, I am conservative and I am a transsexual woman #face

But social conservatives oppose: same-sex marriage, oppose premarital sex, oppose pornography, oppose prostitution and are for the so-called nuclear family.
And there are two types of conservatives. Classic conservatives who believe in elite rule. And conservatives who believe in local control.
Also, yes, conservatives believe in morality (but isn't morality relative?), traditional values and the rule of law. (I mean, politicians do not believe in the rule of law. It's part of their morality -- ha ha!)
As an addendum: conservatism came out of classical liberalism -- :)

[lisaparadise]

Yea...I saw that coming ( the black helicopters and the military industrial complex) I heard Ron Paul has that as his ring tone he loves it so much.


Look...while a discussion about what should be classified and what shouldn't would be constructive in the abstract, when Mr Manning stood in a small room at an undefined location with an American Flag standing in the corner, and raised his right hand and took the military oath, he gave up some of the rights private citizens enjoy. I took the same oath, and lost some of the same privileges, and learned the hard way. He damn sure knew that, and if he didn't he may in fact have mental issues. He does not have the ability or the right, or the privilege to disclose documents the military deems as secret. He's playing under a different set of rules...The Uniform Code of Military Justice and his motives are absolutely irrelevant. It's just that simple. You can attempt to hit the rewind button and ask why any documents are declared Secret and you can make it about gays, or DADT, or gender confusion, or the military industrial complex, or the CIA, but that's all white noise.very well put one of the best posts on here good job.

[lisaparadise]

Assange is actually the true hero in all of this.

~BB~you know something im sick of the bullshit here,first off assange is no hero that should be your parents or somebody who means the world to you not this piece of shit get your shit together bella.the guys a rat a scumbag and a snake if these kinda people are your heros god help us all.

[lisaparadise]

Yes. Assange acted like a decent human being. And Manning put his life quite literally on the line. His treatment has been unusual. Or as P.J. Crowley said: "... stupid."

WikiLeaks' Founder Julian Assange Comments on Bradley Manning Case & US Use of Grand Juries - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1U_7J_uhxk)ben take the nylons and panties off appearantly there too fucking tight and cutting the circulation to your brain.

[BellaBellucci]

you know something im sick of the bullshit here,first off assange is no hero that should be your parents or somebody who means the world to you not this piece of shit get your shit together bella.the guys a rat a scumbag and a snake if these kinda people are your heros god help us all.

Again, I didn't say 'my' hero, did I? Do I strike you as the kind of person who would even have a hero?

Another brilliant rant from the premier intellectual of our time, Lisa Paradise. :lol:

~BB~

[lisaparadise]

Smells like desperation.

Assange came this close to being assassinated and Manning will probably spend his life in prison. Yeah, they did it for kicks.

Are you serious with this shit? :?

~BB~assange should be dead as well as manning dont worry they both will meet there maker.

[lisaparadise]

Again, I didn't say 'my' hero, did I? Do I even strike as the kind of person who would even have a hero?

Another brilliant rant from the premier intellectual of our time, Lisa Paradise. :lol:

~BB~the difference between you and i bella is i know right from wrong and your clueless in that department.

[BellaBellucci]

the difference between you and i bella is i know right from wrong and your clueless in that department.

*BANG!* Ugh, ya got me. *clutches chest*

~BB~

[Ben]

you know something im sick of the bullshit here,first off assange is no hero that should be your parents or somebody who means the world to you not this piece of shit get your shit together bella.the guys a rat a scumbag and a snake if these kinda people are your heros god help us all.

So, when our governments commit crimes no one should expose them? Our governments should then operate in complete secrecy? I mean, who and what do governments serve? Again, who will hold governments accountable if they act in complete and utter secrecy and commit crimes? (And, yes, many things that governments do must be done in secret. Unquestionably. But no one was harmed by these leaks.)
What about, say, The New York Times for releasing the Pentagon Papers? Were they rat scumbags? What about the likes of Bob Woodward... who releases government secrets all the time... and is paid quite well. Is he a rat scumbag?
And, too, what's the role of a journalist? Is a journalist merely a stooge to serve corporate and state power? Or is the role of a journalist to expose crimes, to expose wrongdoings?
And even President Obama, prior to becoming president, PRAISED whistleblowers as being healthy for democracy.

[runningdownthatdream]

I'm shocked thhttp://hungangels.com/vboard/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1065992at you actually believe that. :geek:

'I was just following orders... when I gassed all of those Jews.'

~BB~

Bingo!


......or when I killed those Tutsis or when I killed those Kurds or when I killed those Croats......it takes no courage to follow orders. It does take courage to rebel against 'authority' especially when there is nothing to gain from doing so.

[Stavros]

There is a major difference between the Pentagon Papers and the Wikileaks release: in the case of Vietnam, the 'fog of war' was compounded by outright lies and disinformation on the part of the US military about the conduct of the war and its alleged 'successes'; part of the trauma of that War is not just felt in the personal tragedies for the families involved (on all sides), but the orchestrated lies which these days come from journalists 'embedded' with services. Ellsberg had a political agenda and knew what he was doing.

These days the blizzard of information and comment and the availability of it bears no comparison to Vietnam, but Manning is no Ellsberg, and I wonder if there is a What the hell, let's do it attitude among a lot of people whose moral compass doesn't point in any particular direction -its not like Manning is an old-style communist spy- there are terrabytes of info out there, let's add another 10tb.

Politically, this activity is libertarian, anarchism, and that is what scares the establishment. We knew the PLO had sold out the Palestinians decades ago, reading the fine print merely deepens the disgust; we have known since the beginning Afghanistan was 'unwinnable' and that trillions of $$$$ to fight 25,000 guerillas was a waste of money (for the US anyway, for the warlords, Karzai and the Taliban its been a cash cow). Ultimately, the irony of all this is that, politically, nothing has changed, and it is not likely to change as a consequence. The Pentagon Papers lanced a boil in the American psyche, there were no illusions after it, and the US lumbered to a sloppy withdrawal unable to claim 'Peace with Honour'.

[runningdownthatdream]

Bella I am not going to start a 'tit for tat' over politics. I am proud have help elect people I believe in. I guess now that I am out as trans changed my name & gender I am supposed to throw my beliefs away to support 'the cause' or I am a 'GOP sellout':confused: That about sum it up?



Ben... I have morals, I am conservative and I am a transsexual woman #face

Wait....morals? Not that I'm judging you but your conservative compadres might and I'm not sure they'd agree with your prostitution services, your humiliation fantasies played out in public, your attendance at events where people are beaten bloody, etc etc...how does that compare with their christian, conservative morals?

[BellaBellucci]

Just as an aside, SOPA would give the government the technical ability to block websites such as WikiLeaks. There would be no legal authority to do so, but since when has that ever stopped them?

[EDIT: Actually, they would have the authority under their own copyrights, but there would obviously be an obscene conflict of interest.]

~BB~

[onmyknees]

So, when our governments commit crimes no one should expose them? Our governments should then operate in complete secrecy? I mean, who and what do governments serve? Again, who will hold governments accountable if they act in complete and utter secrecy and commit crimes? (And, yes, many things that governments do must be done in secret. Unquestionably. But no one was harmed by these leaks.)
What about, say, The New York Times for releasing the Pentagon Papers? Were they rat scumbags? What about the likes of Bob Woodward... who releases government secrets all the time... and is paid quite well. Is he a rat scumbag?
And, too, what's the role of a journalist? Is a journalist merely a stooge to serve corporate and state power? Or is the role of a journalist to expose crimes, to expose wrongdoings?
And even President Obama, prior to becoming president, PRAISED whistleblowers as being healthy for democracy.



Ben....you're mixing apples and oranges. First off all...you cannot say these leaks hurt no one. We don't know that. There were tens of thousands of documents....You're inconsistent. So if a leak hurts no one that you know of, ( and with all due respect....how would you know? ) and in your opinion is benign, then it's ok? Or if a leak is used indirectly to put covert operations in danger....is that acceptable because of your need to know? Do you really think if a mission was compromised directly or indirectly by these leaks, the Pentagon would broadcast that on the 6 o'clock news. Who makes that call in the information is non life threatening......you? Assange? You can't go down that road. Your entire premise is flawed. These leaks originated from within the military, and that puts it an entirely different legal arena than the Pentagon Papers. And the apparent motives of Manning are far from patriotic....I think you'll see at the trial that mom and apple pie were the farthest things from his mind....I don't see why you can't grasp that.

[BellaBellucci]

Ben....you're mixing apples and oranges. First off all...you cannot say these leaks hurt no one. We don't know that. There were tens of thousands of documents....You're inconsistent. So if a leak hurts no one that you know of, ( and with all due respect....how would you know? ) and in your opinion is benign, then it's ok? Or if a leak is used indirectly to put covert operations in danger....is that acceptable because of your need to know?

I'm going to step in here, because I had the same argument and because I feel like you're deflecting yours towards me onto Ben in an attempt to pacify me.

These hypothetical situations you mention are morally relative. The intention was to shed light on the darkness of secrecy that, while it could be used for peaceful purposes, could also be used for destructive purposes. Clearly Vietnam and Iraq have taught you nothing.


Who makes that call in the information is non life threatening......you? Assange? You can't go down that road. Your entire premise is flawed. These leaks originated from within the military, and that puts it an entirely different legal arena than the Pentagon Papers. And the apparent motives of Manning are far from patriotic....I think you'll see at the trial that mom and apple pie were the farthest things from his mind....I don't see why you can't grasp that.

Who makes that call? Well, if our government is us, then the answer, inevitably, is us (granted Manning did sign that right away as a member of the military and so should punished reasonably). This is not a government for the people and by the people and hasn't been for quite some time.

As to your final statement, for someone who argued that I couldn't possibly have known whether or not Manning and Assange knew that they would have to pay the consequences for their actions, you seem awfully smug in your assertion that there was some sort of dark motive to all of this.

I mean, really, what could that purpose be? You really think they've found glory in all of this? You're off your rocker! That's like saying that I protest Grooby for the exposure when the truth is that the more I fight with them, the less exposure I receive. I do it anyway because Seanchai a hypocrite, and a liar, and an exploiter who has created a micro-culture around his loose, self-serving morality like most of these politicians, and so it's the right thing to do.

~BB~

[russtafa]

like dog chasing his tail

[BellaBellucci]

like dog chasing his tail

You're right. I'm done. I made my point. You either implicitly trust your government or you don't. Obviously, as long as ours is run by corporatists, I don't.

~BB~

[onmyknees]

I'm going to step in here, because I had the same argument and because I feel like your deflecting yours towards me onto Ben in an attempt to pacify me.

These hypothetical situations you mention are morally relative. The intention was to shed light on the darkness on secrecy that, while it could be used for peaceful purposes, could also be used for destructive purposes. Clearly Vietnam and Iraq have taught you nothing.



Who makes that call? Well, if our government is us, then the answer, inevitably, is us. This is not a government for the people and by the people and hasn't been for quite some time.

As to your final statement, for someone who argued that I couldn't possibly have known whether or not Manning and Assange knew that they would have to pay the consequences for their actions, you seem awfully smug in your assertion that there was some sort of dark motive to all of this.

I mean, really, what could that purpose be? You really think they've found glory in all of this? You're off your rocker! That's like saying that I fight with Seanchai for the exposure when the truth is that the more I fight with him, the less exposure I receive. I do it anyway because he's a hypocrite, and a liar, and an exploiter like most of these politicians, so it's the right thing to do.

~BB~

You don't get to vote on health care, yet you are "we the people". Don't be silly Bella....this is a representative democracy. We elect people who make decisions for us. If we don't like those decisions, we elect new people to more closely reflect our opinions. Maybe we should put these decisions out to initiative in referendum like California does....only to have the courts over rule the will of the people? We only have 30% voter participation as it is, so that's a huge fucking red herring. Where does your right to know end, and the need to protect covert operations begin? You were no doubt celebrating when the Seals blow a hole in Bin Laden's head....did they run that past you first? Did you vote on that? Grow up Bella. The world is a very bad place filled with lots of dangerous people , and I don't feel the need to know every detail of how my government is keeping me and my community safe. You moral absolutists make me laugh.
And I could give a rat's ass why they did it...glory, money, patriotism.....you don't seem to understand it doesn't matter. Manning doesn't get to make that decision. Maybe if he was a reporter for the NY Times you'd have a leg to stand on, but under these circumstances...you don't, and neither does he. There are no do overs.

[BellaBellucci]

You don't get to vote on health care, yet you are "we the people". Don't be silly Bella....this is a representative democracy.

Ok, I lied. I'm not quite done because the nonsense is still spewing here. You should do some research. We're not a representative democracy, we're a constitutional republic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

The operative word there, for those who don't know what the hell they're talking about, is 'Constitutional.'


We elect people who make decisions for us. If we don't like those decisions, we elect new people to more closely reflect our opinions. Maybe we should put these decisions out to initiative in referendum like California does....only to have the courts over rule the will of the people? We only have 30% voter participation as it is, so that's a huge fucking red herring.

Well hey, maybe if people weren't kept ignorant of most subjects and the media didn't do the bidding of both their governmental and corporate overlords, we'd have more voter participation? What you're spouting is the red herring.


Where does your right to know end, and the need to protect covert operations begin? You were no doubt celebrating when the Seals blow a hole in Bin Laden's head....did they run that past you first? Did you vote on that? Grow up Bella. The world is a very bad place filled with lots of dangerous people , and I don't feel the need to know every detail of how my government is keeping me and my community safe. You moral absolutists make me laugh.

Wait. I'm the moral absolutist? Are you brain damaged? I argue the devil's position more than anybody here. It's you who would be led, with the rest of your fellow sheeple, to a totalitarian state. :?

Ironically, I obviously didn't get to vote on Bin Laden's execution, although I still believe he could have and should have been brought to trial, and the way the 'covert op' was handled guaranteed that it would never happen even though President Carter, duly elected by the people, outlawed the assassination of foreign political leaders. What do you have to say about that that isn't rooted in post-9/11 terminology like 'enemy combatant?' Prior to the enactment of the new laws, Bin Laden could have been considered a political leader, and even afterward he remained at the top of the FBI's most wanted list (a civilian agency) for nearly as long as Whitey Bulger after already having been on it since the original WTC car bombing.

In short, the military should be limited in its role as a retrieval force for extraditions, and neither they, nor the executive branch, should act as judge, jury, and executioner.

~BB~

[BBaggins06]

Was Bin Laden really a political leader? In the 21st century, you can't have politics without lobbyists. ;)

[Christastic]

Wikileaks exposed actual wrongdoing; criminal activity covered up by the government. I don't see how anyone can argue that exposing those things is wrong simply because Manning possibly broke a law to do it. Sometimes the law is wrong.

[atomic1975]

It's all bull, just as the whole "Assange puppet-master" propaganda nonsense is a smokescreen. The whole point of wikileaks is that the people running it don't know who their sources are. If this wasn't the case it would have come out long before now.

[onmyknees]

Ok, I lied. I'm not quite done because the nonsense is still spewing here. You should do some research. We're not a representative democracy, we're a constitutional republic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

The operative word there, for those who don't know what the hell they're talking about, is 'Constitutional.'



Well hey, maybe if people weren't kept ignorant of most subjects and the media didn't do the bidding of both their governmental and corporate overlords, we'd have more voter participation? What you're spouting is the red herring.



Wait. I'm the moral absolutist? Are you brain damaged? I argue the devil's position more than anybody here. It's you who would be led, with the rest of your fellow sheeple, to a totalitarian state. :?

Ironically, I obviously didn't get to vote on Bin Laden's execution, although I still believe he could have and should have been brought to trial, and the way the 'covert op' was handled guaranteed that it would never happen even though President Carter, duly elected by the people, outlawed the assassination of foreign political leaders. What do you have to say about that that isn't rooted in post-9/11 terminology like 'enemy combatant?' Prior to the enactment of the new laws, Bin Laden could have been considered a political leader, and even afterward he remained at the top of the FBI's most wanted list (a civilian agency) for nearly as long as Whitey Bulger after already having been on it since the original WTC car bombing.

In short, the military should be limited in its role as a retrieval force for extraditions, and neither they, nor the executive branch, should act as judge, jury, and executioner.

~BB~


You could have stopped at " I argue the devil's position". I think having read hundreds of your posts, we quite get that. It's not that I think you don't believe what you say on any given day, it's that you're contrary and stubborn....by your own admission.
Here's the analogy I would draw. Reading your posts on this issue reminds me of candidate Obama with respect to the global war on terror. Not in your political philosophy, but in your idealistic naivety. All of that talk about open government, and doing away with Gitmo, and rendition, and civilian trials sounded and felt so good.....until you're actually tasked with keeping Americans safe in a very dangerous world and realize the enormity of that task. . Fortunately for us.....you don't have that responsibility because a certain reality sets in, and what might have sounded good sitting in a university classroom, or coming from the cozy confines of sunny LA doesn't quite get the job done in the mountains of Afghanistan when dealing with men like Bin Laden or Anwar al-Awlaki.
And Bin Laden on trial????? Please........... you're kidding...........................right?

[BellaBellucci]

You could have stopped at " I argue the devil's position". I think having read hundreds of your posts, we quite get that. It's not that I think you don't believe what you say on any given day, it's that you're contrary and stubborn....by your own admission.

Seanchai told us how much he respected and admired Christopher Hitchens in his RIP thread for this exact reason, but completely avoided the fact that he hates me for using the same techniques. Personally, I think it's because they work so well against him. Furthermore, my positions have always been consistent except when something has been proven to me to be incorrect. Empirical evidence FTW.

So... how did you feel about Hitch? Did you question his motives too, or did you ever actually just listen to the content of his arguments? More double-standards? :?

The rest of your post was just 9/11 propaganda.

~BB~

[Jericho]

Controversy kudos,Granny! :Bowdown:

[BellaBellucci]

The defense seems to be arguing that Manning should have been Section 8'ed, but not for GID, although that was one of his many mental and emotional issues. So it's beginning to look like he wasn't a hero, but he wasn't necessarily a villain. Also, it seems he was betrayed by somebody whom he trusted, which couldn't possibly make matters any better.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/us/governments-last-witness-takes-stand-at-bradley-manning-hearing.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto

I suspect they'll find him guilty regardless, but the sympathy play certainly may get him a better sentence.

~BB~