Military judge contradicts Obama admin on Chelsea Manning dick size

[Byrthnoth]

Lets get real though. Bradley Manning hardly strikes me as some secret crusader for justice. He's just some internet derpaderp that did it for the lulz and got caught.

Does he deserve life in prison / whatever? Probably not. Take away his badge and he's not a threat anymore. They could crucify him as a deterrent for future snitches, or they could fix their fucking security and improve their screening process. Considering the potential damage of someone with high security clearance, I know which one I'd rather see them do. Realistically, though, they'll probably try to do both because they don't have a compelling reason not to and the life of Bradley Manning isn't worth a shit to them.

[Blubbartron]

Lets get real though. Bradley Manning hardly strikes me as some secret crusader for justice. He's just some internet derpaderp that did it for the lulz and got caught.

Does he deserve life in prison / whatever? Probably not. Take away his badge and he's not a threat anymore. They could crucify him as a deterrent for future snitches, or they could fix their fucking security and improve their screening process. Considering the potential damage of someone with high security clearance, I know which one I'd rather see them do. Realistically, though, they'll probably try to do both because they don't have a compelling reason not to and the life of Bradley Manning isn't worth a shit to them.

You clearly have made an opinion about Manning through the media (or family opinions). I'd suggest reading the chat logs for yourself. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ning-lamo-logs

Here's an excerpt:

(12:15:11 PM) bradass87: hypothetical question: if you had free reign over classified networks for long periods of time… say, 8-9 months… and you saw incredible things, awful things… things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC… what would you do?

(12:16:38 PM) bradass87: or Guantanamo, Bagram, Bucca, Taji, VBC for that matter…

(12:17:47 PM) bradass87: things that would have an impact on 6.7 billion people

(12:21:24 PM) bradass87: say… a database of half a million events during the iraq war… from 2004 to 2009… with reports, date time groups, lat-lon locations, casualty figures… ? or 260,000 state department cables from embassies and consulates all over the world, explaining how the first world exploits the third, in detail, from an internal perspective?

[Churchill]

I got about to the part where he went to the PX and wanted him to be executed.

[Byrthnoth]

Again, sounds like a kid with a toy. "I have all this awesome data that has the potential to cause a huge global impact. What do I do with it? Uh, I don't know. How about I release it publically and see what happens next?" Doing something purely to generate a response is the definition of doing it "for the lulz."

He could have gone to a specific media outlet and leaked it covertly or in a way that somewhat controls the impacts of the information, becoming the deepthroat of war atrocities and minimizing potential collateral damage. Instead he chose to file dump it to a stranger on the interwebs. The crude, inefficient, and ineffective way that he chose to leak it (he lost control of all information almost immediately, relative lack of an impact, etc.) all undermine claims that he was somehow doing it for the sake of global enlightenment and to move us towards a brighter future.

He saw that he had access to a lot of information that people would care about. He dumped it to see how much they cared.

[Kuya]

He didn't give it to a stranger on the internet. If he was in fact the guy who did it, he gave it to Wikileaks, and they always vet and check their information to see what they can and cannot release.

Where are you getting your information from?

[Yugl]

You clearly have made an opinion about Manning through the media (or family opinions). I'd suggest reading the chat logs for yourself. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ning-lamo-logs

He sounds like an attention-seeking emo bitch. Every other line is a variation of "omg can't believe I'm telling you", "omg dude so much trouble", or "oh man, can't wait for this shit to hit them!". Was he rightfully worried? Perhaps, but he knew the consequences and sometimes couches the concerns with a desire to surprise the public.

[archibaldcrane]

His continued detention without a trial is pretty indefensible, regardless of what you think of his crimes.

Also, he's a fucking idiot.

[GoggleHead]

All I'm seeing is someone being imprisoned and treated like shit for two years without a trial. That is not ok.

[Nephlite]

They probably already think he's guilty. High Treason is one of those things that if the government can prove that just one life was lost or one mission failed because of the leak, then he's probably already a dead man. I'm sure a lot of the details and stuff are being worked out, which is why the pre-cursor to trial is taking so long. What, if any, specific charges are being brought up by the government? Leaking of Classified Information is fine but what specifically was leaked that caused a breach in security or threatened the lives of Americans? In all likelihood, most of the information, while classified, probably won't be important enough to secure the indictment of High Treason and he'll probably get a year or two if not just a time served sentence and will be a free man once it's all over.

[Ksandra]

As others said, him being held without trial is retarded, but this

(12:21:24 PM) bradass87: say… a database of half a million events during the iraq war… from 2004 to 2009… with reports, date time groups, lat-lon locations, casualty figures… ?

is also insanely stupid. How can someone not see why giving this kind of info out would effect the US in an extremely negative way is beyond me.

[Not Kuno]

snitches get stitches

[ronin sparthos]

And if you're with the terrorists, all bets are off.

[Byrthnoth]

He didn't give it to a stranger on the internet. If he was in fact the guy who did it, he gave it to Wikileaks, and they always vet and check their information to see what they can and cannot release.

Where are you getting your information from?

My bad. I forgot that he knew everyone that would see the information in WikiLeaks including their then-anonymous board of leaders. What reason did he have to trust their security vs. every interested government in the world and their hacker squad / secret service? How could they possibly have convinced him of that through a few conversations? Where is the evidence that they successfully protected it so that our government doesn't have to make every move assuming that their enemies have a copy of every leaked file regardless whether or not it was published?

If I was categorizing this as a controlled or uncontrolled leak, it would be uncontrolled. He had very little control to start with and there's no evidence he took any personal responsibility for making sure the information wasn't excessively damaging.


I don't like indefinite detainment any more than the next guy and I wish they'd actually put him to trial, but the outcome of the trial is a foregone conclusion.

[Kuya]

My bad. I forgot that he knew everyone that would see the information in WikiLeaks including their then-anonymous board of leaders. What reason did he have to trust their security vs. every interested government in the world and their hacker squad / secret service? How could they possibly have convinced him of that through a few conversations? Where is the evidence that they successfully protected it so that our government doesn't have to make every move assuming that their enemies have a copy of every leaked file regardless whether or not it was published?

If I was categorizing this as a controlled or uncontrolled leak, it would be uncontrolled. He had very little control to start with and there's no evidence he took any personal responsibility for making sure the information wasn't excessively damaging.


I don't like indefinite detainment any more than the next guy and I wish they'd actually put him to trial, but the outcome of the trial is a foregone conclusion.

It seems like Manning was more aware of Wikileaks reputation than you are. Instead of simply insulting you for your disgusting display of ignorance, i will educate you.

The government itself admitted that the leaks never caused serious damage to US national security:

But months after the leaks were published, nearly 100 government intelligence analysts reported to Congress that the disclosures had done little actual damage to U.S. national interests. “We were told [by intelligence analysts that the impact of WikiLeaks revelations] was embarrassing but not damaging,” a government official familiar with the report told the Reuters news agency. [Footnote 24] The State Department did note, however, that it helped relocate a small number of people who had been compromised through the release of the documents. [Footnote 25]

Even though the government denied it, evidence consistently appeared that Wikileaks was trying to avoid causing unnecessary harm to innocent people involved in the leaks:

Spoiler: show

When the controversy first arose over the lack of redactions in the war documents released by WikiLeaks, the website insisted that, using the New York Times as an intermediary, it had asked the Obama administration for help in removing names of Afghans before releasing the documents, a claim the Pentagon vehemently denied. The New York Times, needless to say, sided with the Government — that’s what the NYT does — but they did so by simultaneously confirming the truth of WikiLeaks’ version of events. From the Associated Press article, July 31, on that controversy:

Also on Saturday, a New York Times reporter who has been the newspaper’s liaison with Assange, dismissed Assange’s claim that WikiLeaks had offered to let U.S. government officials go through leaked documents to ensure that no innocent people were identified. Assange told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. in an interview that aired Thursday that the New York Times had acted as an intermediary and that the White House hadn’t responded to the offer.

Times reporter Eric Schmitt told the AP that on the night of July 23, at White House spokesman’s Robert Gibbs’ request, he relayed to Assange a White House request that WikiLeaks not publish information that could lead to people being physically harmed.

The next evening, Schmitt said, Assange replied in an e-mail that WikiLeaks was withholding 15,000 documents for review. Schmitt said Assange wrote that WikiLeaks would consider recommendations made by the International Security Assistance Force “on the identification of innocents for this material if it is willing to provide reviewers.”

Schmitt said he forwarded the e-mail to White House officials and Times editors.

“I certainly didn’t consider this a serious and realistic offer to the White House to vet any of the documents before they were to be posted, and I think it’s ridiculous that Assange is portraying it that way now,” Schmitt wrote to the AP.

On Friday, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said it was “absolutely, unequivocally not true” that WikiLeaks had offered to let U.S. government officials go through the documents to make sure no innocent people were identified.

Do you see what happened there? Schmitt, wanting to side with his Pentagon friends, publicly suggested that Assange was lying when he claimed that he offered to allow the Government to suggest redcations, even as Schmitt himself acknowledged that “Assange wrote that WikiLeaks would consider recommendations made by the International Security Assistance Force ‘on the identification of innocents for this material if it is willing to provide reviewers’,” an offer Schmitt says he conveyed to the White House. In other words, Schmitt defended the Pentagon’s denials that Assange made this offer even as he himself described the very events which proved Assange was telling the truth. At the very least, WikiLeaks clearly indicated its willingness to have government officials review the documents and make recommendations about redactions — something those officials refused to do.

But yesterday, WikiLeaks the DoD itself released a letter — dated August 16 (two days before the Newsweek article) — which makes clear that WikiLeaks did exactly that which DoD officials denied they did: namely, they asked DoD for help redacting these remaining documents. That letter, written by DoD Legal Counsel Jeh Charles Johnson to WikiLeak’s counsel, Timothy Matusheski, explicitly recounts — contrary to the emphatic denials in Newsweek — that WikiLeaks’ lawyer had contacted the Pentagon and requested help in the “harm minimization” process. The DoD, however, is explicitly refusing to offer any help whatsoever:

Finally, the conversations posted so far, are not of Manning giving information to a Wikileaks liaison. I don't know if the government has evidence of him contacting someone from Wikileaks.

Anyway, there will always be people like you who, when in government, do everything in their power to keep secrets, especially embarrassing secrets. And when you're not in the government, we can always count on people like you to be a cheerleader for abuse.

http://cqresearcherblog.blogspot.com...-national.html

http://www.salon.com/2010/08/20/wikileaks_5/

[Byrthnoth]

I didn't say he bet and lost. I said he bet.

[Ashmada]

Regardless of what we think of him, a non-dystopian society isn't supposed to treat a prisoner unnecessarily harshly. We're not in the middle ages and all that (though, yeah, US...).

They probably already think he's guilty.

Anyone else hearing drums and seeing kangaroos?



Aside: Kuya: the substantive you're looking for is "conscience". "Conscious" is an adjective.
Normally wouldn't grammar nazi, but seen that mistake 'round these parts before, so yeah.

[Deadgye]

It seems like Manning was more aware of Wikileaks reputation than you are. Instead of simply insulting you for your disgusting display of ignorance, i will educate you.

You cannot use hindsight to justify the leak being controlled as opposed to uncontrolled.

[Nephlite]

Anyone else hearing drums and seeing kangaroos?

They'll hold him till they find something. He's already been indicted, he's just waiting for them to see how big the scope of the leak is. That's the thing about a military proceeding. They can take all the time they want in big cases like this because in their minds, the burden of proof was already met to say he's guilty according to guidelines in a court martial. Now it's up to the tribunal to see how big the case is to see if other people need to hang along with Manning and then put a lid on it. Not only do they impose sentencing, they also investigate, gather evidence, question, detain and convict and finally close the case all in one go.

If it turns out to be huge, then he'll probably die or spend the rest of his life in the stockade. If it's small, they'll probably weigh the "loose end" theory that to prevent further misconduct, they'll either make an example of him and fuck him over anyway or (taking in to account the public outcry) recognize that it was in fact a problem with government control and rule there. Either way he could be fucked since there are people who have control over the military and the way it handles it's investigations. Even in that scenario, they won't admit to government misconduct or wrong doing. Can bet your ass CID will make sure that shit doesn't make it to the light of day.

[noblemountain]

I think people are forgetting what you addressed there. This isn't a civilian court. He is subject to the UCMJ first and foremost.

[Xno Kappa]

Even in that scenario, they won't admit to government misconduct or wrong doing. Can bet your ass CID will make sure that shit doesn't make it to the light of day.

Any offense of government misconduct or wrong doing associated with this incident will be opened under a new ROI with a restricted distribution to only the CID and DODIG commands. Manning has already had his Article 32 hearing, so more then likely his trial is pending the additional investigations created in relation to this. Basically what's taking so long I can pretty much guarantee is that a majority of people in his chain of command and all others involved are going to be titled and subsequently investigated if they haven't been so already. His case file along with a huge block of ROI numbers around it are probably blacked out in the ACI2 database from any other CID agent to see except those assigned to it, let alone the public.