Link (http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/manning-wikileaks-verdict-to-be-read-tuesday?ocid=ansnews11)
Quote
FORT MEADE, Md. – U.S. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning has been acquitted of aiding the enemy for giving classified secrets to WikiLeaks, but convicted of a variety of other charges, including espionage.
The military judge hearing the case, Army Col. Denise Lind, announced the verdict Tuesday. Manning was convicted of six espionage counts, five theft charges, a computer fraud charge and other military infractions. He faces 136 years in prison for those convictions. Aiding the enemy was the most serious charge, and carried a possible life sentence.
His sentencing hearing is set to begin Wednesday.
The 25-year-old Crescent, Okla., native acknowledged giving the anti-secrecy website hundreds of thousands of battlefield reports, diplomatic cables and videos in early 2010.
On Twitter, WikiLeaks called the verdict "A very serious new precedent for supplying information [to] the press" and "dangerous national security extremism from the Obama administration."
Hours before the verdict, about two dozen Manning supporters had gathered at Fort Meade, outside Baltimore, where the court-martial was being held. They wore "truth" T-shirts and waved signs, proclaiming their admiration for the former intelligence analyst who sent reams of classified information to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks.
Barbara Bridges, 43, of Baltimore dismissed the government's charges that Manning aided the enemy.
"He wasn't trying to aid the enemy. He was trying to give people the information they need so they can hold their government accountable," she said.
Prosecutors tried to prove Manning had "a general evil intent" and knew the classified material would be seen by the terrorist group al-Qaida. Legal experts said an aiding-the- enemy conviction could set a precedent because Manning did not directly give the classified material to al-Qaida.
"Most of the aiding-the-enemy charges historically have had to do with POWs who gave information to the Japanese during World War II, or to Chinese communists during Korea, or during the Vietnam War," Duke law school professor and former Air Force judge advocate Scott Silliman said.
The verdict follows about two months of conflicting testimony and evidence. Manning has admitted to sending more than 470,000 Iraq and Afghanistan battlefield reports, 250,000 State Department diplomatic cables and other material, including several battlefield video clips, to WikiLeaks while in Iraq in early 2010. WikiLeaks published most of the material online.
The video included footage of a 2007 U.S. Apache helicopter attack in Baghdad that killed at least nine men, including a Reuters news photographer and his driver.
Manning did not testify during the trial, but has said he sent the material to expose war crimes and deceitful diplomacy. In closing arguments last week, defense attorney David Coombs portrayed Manning as a naive whistleblower who never intended for the material to be seen by the enemy. Manning claims he selected material that wouldn't harm troops or national security.
Prosecutors called him an anarchist hacker and traitor who indiscriminately leaked classified information he had sworn to protect. They said al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden obtained copies of some of the documents WikiLeaks published before he was killed by U.S. Navy Seals in 2011.
Poor guy...
^You mean, poor traitor?
Yeah, I have zero sympathy for him.
The difference between Manning and Snowden is that Manning did it just to be an idiot. There were no American principles on the line.
As far as I'm concerned they can lock Manning up and throw away the key.
Quote from: Martok on July 30, 2013, 03:40:11 PM
Yeah, I have zero sympathy for him.
Too bad you don't play your turns in Armada 2526 as fast as you reply here ::)
to be fair he plays his turns faster then I write reviews. ;)
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on July 30, 2013, 05:47:48 PM
to be fair he plays his turns faster then I write reviews. ;)
Not sure if this is really a compliment ;)
Quote from: Anguille on July 30, 2013, 05:34:20 PM
Quote from: Martok on July 30, 2013, 03:40:11 PM
Yeah, I have zero sympathy for him.
Too bad you don't play your turns in Armada 2526 as fast as you reply here ::)
Well if I could get them to actually show up, I would! (The turns appear in my Gmail inbox, but not the game itself.) :-[ Since I've continued to have issues, I felt it best to just let the rest of you guys play without me.
Snowden, I'm actually torn over. I lean towards whistleblower, absent any evidence that he passed (or passes) information directly to a foreign government. Manning, Manning violated his oath and disgraced his uniform. Leavenworth is going to be home for a very long time.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on July 30, 2013, 05:47:48 PM
to be fair he plays his turns faster then I write reviews. ;)
we got a review of the last ice age from a glacier faster than you're getting yours turned around ;)
That's only because Windy was there.
Quote from: Martok on July 30, 2013, 05:51:28 PM
Quote from: Anguille on July 30, 2013, 05:34:20 PM
Quote from: Martok on July 30, 2013, 03:40:11 PM
Yeah, I have zero sympathy for him.
Too bad you don't play your turns in Armada 2526 as fast as you reply here ::)
Well if I could get them to actually show up, I would! (The turns appear in my Gmail inbox, but not the game itself.) :-[ Since I've continued to have issues, I felt it best to just let the rest of you guys play without me.
Seems to me that you've done something wrong in your mp settings, email password?...it is caps sensitive as well, so make sure your email is written exactely the same. Check it again, Sam. ;)
Quote from: Steelgrave on July 30, 2013, 07:41:30 PM
Snowden, I'm actually torn over. I lean towards whistleblower, absent any evidence that he passed (or passes) information directly to a foreign government. Manning, Manning violated his oath and disgraced his uniform. Leavenworth is going to be home for a very long time.
Recalling the clip that I recently saw on Channel 4 news posted by Manning of the Helicopter pilot killing unarmed civilians and gloating about it (below clip @3:06), I'm not that sure that Manning is as bad as he's being made out to be.
http://www.channel4.com/news/bradley-manning-wikileaks-verdict-us-whistle-blower-iraq
I'd suggest that there are a lot of people out there furious with Manning because he exposed their potentially criminal behaviour and they want to discredit and shut him up.
I see much the same with Snowden's case. I'm annoyed that from Snowden's disclosures that as a UK citizen, I am being spied on by the US Govt - not that I represent the slightest threat to the USA.
I used to think of the US as the good guys, but a lot of what has come out has exposed the fact that the US behaves very much like the bad guys, and for that Manning and Snowden are being targeted as the cause. The question is really is what will the US Govt do to bring to book those Manning and Snowden have exposed for disgracing the USA by their actions before the world? We've seen recent politically motivated trials in Russia, but this is the USA in 2013. Still perhaps the politicians will feel safer if they intimidate whistle blowers into silence? I'm no great fan of Assange, but I think he makes a valid point - http://www.channel4.com/news/bradley-manning-julian-assange-wikileaks-conviction-video
Does it remind you in a parallel way a little of the film Enemy of the State, where an NSA Director, using the power of the state goes to extreme lengths to cover up a murder?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_State_(film)
Quote from: Boggit on July 31, 2013, 06:34:31 AM
I'd suggest that there are a lot of people out there furious with Manning because he exposed their potentially criminal behaviour and they want to discredit and shut him up.
I see much the same with Snowden's case. I'm annoyed that from Snowden's disclosures that as a UK citizen, I am being spied on by the US Govt - not that I represent the slightest threat to the USA.
I used to think of the US as the good guys, but a lot of what has come out has exposed the fact that the US behaves very much like the bad guys, and for that Manning and Snowden are being targeted as the cause. The question is really is what will the US Govt do to bring to book those Manning and Snowden have exposed for disgracing the USA by their actions before the world? We've seen recent politically motivated trials in Russia, but this is the USA in 2013. Still perhaps the politicians will feel safer if they intimidate whistle blowers into silence?
You've posted several interesting thoughts.
Let's deal with the last first. So far, that we know of, none of these civil liberties intrusions has resulted in death in the US. There was the case a few years back of a Brazilian drug dealer who was killed in the UK. And there is still a question mark as to what happened with Michael Hastings, who died under curious circumstances. You may recall he was the journalist who wrote that unflattering article about Gen McCrystal.
QuoteIn the hours before his death, which was ruled an accident by the Los Angeles Police Department, Hastings emailed Wikileaks' lawyer Jennifer Robinson that he was being investigated by the federal government.
Staff Sgt. Joseph Biggs — who knew Hastings when he was embedded with Bigg's unit in Afghanistan — told KTLA Hastings had blind copied him on an email sent 15 hours before his death, notifying colleagues that federal officials were interviewing his "close friends and associates."
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/29/lawsuit-launched-against-doj-for-fbi-records-on-michael-hastings/#ixzz2acw1R3OC
I haven't seen any evidence other than allegations emerge to make me think his death was anything other than an accident, but it is a rather convenient coincidence. And you know what I like to say about these things: there are no coincidences in this business - except for all the coincidences.
------
The second issue I'd like to discuss is the malfeasance of people in government who are hidden by bureaucracy and secrecy. Opinions differ on the subject but to my eyes our government has grown far too large to be held properly accountable for actions or spending. It's as simple as that.
------
The third issue you raise is the most troubling. As a US citizen I find it deeply disturbing that one of the clearest statutes in our Bill of Rights has just be casually cast aside. I recognize that as a UK citizen you do not enjoy those rights. And therein lies the rub. If the US wants to spy on all of its citizens and is prohibited from doing so, who is to to prevent the UK from spying on all of us and passing along whatever conspiracy theories they wish to us? Multiply that a few times amongst our allies, with the UK, Germans, French, et al all spying on the US, and us returning the favor to them.
And then there is the case of the real problem: the Russians and Chinese and every other bad guy out there doing it, too. The picture emerges that our electronic lives are being panty raided by any and all. That no one has yet managed to bungle it all up in the light of day is a small miracle. That nothing more serious than the hopeful two exceptions noted above has taken place should not give us hope that further abuses will not be forthcoming. On the contrary it should be deeply disturbing that so many abuses go unchecked and outside the light of day.
The problem at its heart is that the good guys aren't behaving much like good guys right now. When the entire population of a democratic republic is treated as potential threat to the government then it's time to rethink who the good guys and bad guys might be.
Quote from: Boggit on July 31, 2013, 06:34:31 AM
Quote from: Steelgrave on July 30, 2013, 07:41:30 PM
Snowden, I'm actually torn over. I lean towards whistleblower, absent any evidence that he passed (or passes) information directly to a foreign government. Manning, Manning violated his oath and disgraced his uniform. Leavenworth is going to be home for a very long time.
Recalling the clip that I recently saw on Channel 4 news posted by Manning of the Helicopter pilot killing unarmed civilians and gloating about it (below clip @3:06), I'm not that sure that Manning is as bad as he's being made out to be.
http://www.channel4.com/news/bradley-manning-wikileaks-verdict-us-whistle-blower-iraq
I'd suggest that there are a lot of people out there furious with Manning because he exposed their potentially criminal behaviour and they want to discredit and shut him up.
I see much the same with Snowden's case. I'm annoyed that from Snowden's disclosures that as a UK citizen, I am being spied on by the US Govt - not that I represent the slightest threat to the USA.
I used to think of the US as the good guys, but a lot of what has come out has exposed the fact that the US behaves very much like the bad guys, and for that Manning and Snowden are being targeted as the cause. The question is really is what will the US Govt do to bring to book those Manning and Snowden have exposed for disgracing the USA by their actions before the world? We've seen recent politically motivated trials in Russia, but this is the USA in 2013. Still perhaps the politicians will feel safer if they intimidate whistle blowers into silence? I'm no great fan of Assange, but I think he makes a valid point - http://www.channel4.com/news/bradley-manning-julian-assange-wikileaks-conviction-video
Does it remind you in a parallel way a little of the film Enemy of the State, where an NSA Director, using the power of the state goes to extreme lengths to cover up a murder?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_State_(film)
^This is a very cynical, narrow-minded view of the criminal acts of both of these individuals and quite frankly, I expect more from someone of your intelligence.
Both Manning and Snowden took oaths and had jobs to do. They were trusted with classified information and both of them violated this trust. Moreover, it is foolish to believe that these two individuals divulged this classified information because of some idealistic belief that the "people have a right to know." Rather, they are self-interested dimwits who did not get enough hugs growing up, and did not feel like they were getting enough attention for their work. If they truly wanted to "do the right thing," then they should have resigned from their position, stopped stealing classified information, and do things the legal way. You are criticizing one person's criminal behavior, while commending another's.
You take a couple instances of classified materials released, and make it seem like these guys are heroes for making it public...but what about all the information they released that cost lives? What about all the information released regarding our overseas methods, our sources, who our friends are, who is cooperating with us. This information is extremely damaging, placed lives at risk and should be considered aiding the enemy.
You're upset you're being spied on? You needed Manning and Snowden to tell you that? The UK is spying on her allies as well. Get over it.
QuoteManning did not testify during the trial, but has said he sent the material to expose war crimes and deceitful diplomacy.
Seriously?!! This is the most f#$&ing self-import Private ever! War crimes and deceitful diplomacy??!! WTF is wrong with the kids today? Dumbass.
Self-interested dimwit... bulls-eye JH.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 31, 2013, 08:05:03 AMBoth Manning and Snowden took oaths and had jobs to do.
A minor quibble here - I'm pretty sure that Snowden didn't take any oaths as a contractor, nor in the receiving of his clearance. I know that I didn't do any of those as a contractor. Manning certainly did as a soldier. In his mind, he may have even convinced himself that he
was upholding his oath, though I choose to disagree with that characterization of his actions.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 31, 2013, 08:05:03 AM
This information is extremely damaging, placed lives at risk and should be considered aiding the enemy.
You're upset you're being spied on? You needed Manning and Snowden to tell you that?
Those two statements are contradictory.
I'll be frank. I don't think this damaged anything. It's public knowledge that 80% of the world's internet backbone passes through the US. The US military built the internet (apologies to Al Gore). It's therefore a very small leap to to figure out that the US is sucking up all electronic data, storing it in a relational database, and querying it at will.
The only surprise is the flagrant violation of obvious constitutional restrictions.
Further, I have yet to read a single report that indicated these methods *revealed* any active plots. To the contrary, they clearly failed to reveal at least two.
When are they useful? After good old fashioned detective work uncovered plots. After which sucking up all the data would be perfectly justified and fits nicely with probable cause.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on July 31, 2013, 08:10:14 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 31, 2013, 08:05:03 AMBoth Manning and Snowden took oaths and had jobs to do.
A minor quibble here - I'm pretty sure that Snowden didn't take any oaths as a contractor, nor in the receiving of his clearance. I know that I didn't do any of those as a contractor. Manning certainly did as a soldier. In his mind, he may have even convinced himself that he was upholding his oath, though I choose to disagree with that characterization of his actions.
A. You're wrong. Snowden worked for Booz Allen Hamilton. When Snowden began his work for Booz Allen, he took two oaths. The first oath was to keep secret the classified materials to which he would be exposed in his work as a spy; the second oath was to uphold the Constitution.
B. Why the f*ck are you even trying to make excuses for this assclown, or justify his behavior?
Quote from: LongBlade on July 31, 2013, 08:15:58 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 31, 2013, 08:05:03 AM
This information is extremely damaging, placed lives at risk and should be considered aiding the enemy.
You're upset you're being spied on? You needed Manning and Snowden to tell you that?
Those two statements are contradictory.
The statements are not contradictory. They are unrelated. The information which placed lives at risk is not the the information regarding who we are and are not spying on. The much more damaging information has to do with how we do it, who does it, and who our sources are.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on July 31, 2013, 08:10:14 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 31, 2013, 08:05:03 AMBoth Manning and Snowden took oaths and had jobs to do.
A minor quibble here - I'm pretty sure that Snowden didn't take any oaths as a contractor, nor in the receiving of his clearance. I know that I didn't do any of those as a contractor. Manning certainly did as a soldier. In his mind, he may have even convinced himself that he was upholding his oath, though I choose to disagree with that characterization of his actions.
The moral high ground would have been for either to resign their position. That they leaked into tells me that they are either interested in fame or profit. Although I would argue that Manning is merely a dumbass. He was an Intel Pfc, right?
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 31, 2013, 08:17:52 AMA. You're wrong. Snowden worked for Booz Allen Hamilton. When Snowden began his work for Booz Allen, he took two oaths. The first oath was to keep secret the classified materials to which he would be exposed in his work as a spy; the second oath was to uphold the Constitution.
There's no oath needed to work for BAH, and there's no oath needed to hold a security clearance. There's a lot of legal documentation, but no oath in the same way one takes an oath of enlistment. I've not worked directly for BAH (we sub'ed through them) but I know at least a half-dozen people who do, and there's no oath involved in working for a private company.
Similarly, there's no oath one takes when receiving a security clearance. I know because I have one, and I got it as a contractor.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 31, 2013, 08:17:52 AMB. Why the f*ck are you even trying to make excuses for this assclown, or justify his behavior?
I'm not trying to justify his behavior. He was wrong. I'm saying that in *his* mind he thinks he was doing the right thing, but his mind clearly wasn't firing on all the cylinders it needed to fire on. As a result, he made a bad decision that likely got people killed in places and on operations we will never know about, and he's going to spend a lot of time getting his ass beat in jail because he was an idiot who royally screwed up.
One of my biggest beefs in the Manning debacle is that people have come out with statements of support that action against Bradley will have a chilling effect on whistleblowers and the media. I call BS on that one. Wikileaks are *not* the media. They're not "new media"; they're not any media. They are a dump site for random and selectively-edited crap they feel like throwing at the world to support their partisan political agendas. They are no more "media" than the local chapter of IWW.
What is should do - and this is a good thing, in my mind - is deter people from handing over classified material, especially to BS organizations with political axes to grind and full intentions of doing as much damage with that material as possible. There's a world of difference between "the mayor is misusing funds to cover up sexual harassment lawsuits" and "classified intel operations gather a lot of actionable data, but sometimes we kill people to get it"
Quote from: bayonetbrant on July 31, 2013, 08:29:40 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 31, 2013, 08:17:52 AMA. You're wrong. Snowden worked for Booz Allen Hamilton. When Snowden began his work for Booz Allen, he took two oaths. The first oath was to keep secret the classified materials to which he would be exposed in his work as a spy; the second oath was to uphold the Constitution.
There's no oath needed to work for BAH, and there's no oath needed to hold a security clearance. There's a lot of legal documentation, but no oath in the same way one takes an oath of enlistment. I've not worked directly for BAH (we sub'ed through them) but I know at least a half-dozen people who do, and there's no oath involved in working for a private company.
Similarly, there's no oath one takes when receiving a security clearance. I know because I have one, and I got it as a contractor.
My sources beg to differ. If you're simply making the argument that he breached a contract, rather than an oath that he swore by raising his right hand, well I'm not going to waste my time. Either way, he was wrong and broke the law.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 31, 2013, 08:31:34 AM
Quote from: bayonetbrant on July 31, 2013, 08:29:40 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 31, 2013, 08:17:52 AMA. You're wrong. Snowden worked for Booz Allen Hamilton. When Snowden began his work for Booz Allen, he took two oaths. The first oath was to keep secret the classified materials to which he would be exposed in his work as a spy; the second oath was to uphold the Constitution.
There's no oath needed to work for BAH, and there's no oath needed to hold a security clearance. There's a lot of legal documentation, but no oath in the same way one takes an oath of enlistment. I've not worked directly for BAH (we sub'ed through them) but I know at least a half-dozen people who do, and there's no oath involved in working for a private company.
Similarly, there's no oath one takes when receiving a security clearance. I know because I have one, and I got it as a contractor.
My sources beg to differ. If you're simply making the argument that he breached a contract, rather than an oath that he swore by raising his right hand, well I'm not going to waste my time. Either way, he was wrong and broke the law.
What about the 4th Amendment? It's pretty clear you need a good reason to perform any search.
What happens when the laws aren't being followed by the good guys?
Quote from: LongBlade on July 31, 2013, 08:37:02 AM
What happens when the laws aren't being followed by the good guys?
Like I said, you resign, stop stealing classified information, and do things the legal way. You do not violate your oath/breach your contract (happy Brant?) and place lives at stake.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 31, 2013, 08:31:34 AMEither way, he was wrong and broke the law.
100% agree
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 31, 2013, 08:40:22 AMYou do not violate your oath/breach your contract (happy Brant?) and place lives at stake.
yep :)
Quote from: bayonetbrant on July 31, 2013, 08:45:15 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 31, 2013, 08:40:22 AMYou do not violate your oath/breach your contract (happy Brant?) and place lives at stake.
yep :)
See...who says I'm not sensitive to the feelings of others?
Below is a link to a former Army Intelligence Officer's comments on Manning. The big take-away for me is how many signals Manning gave that he was not to be trusted to be in the uniform, much less with classified information and how the Army just ignored the evidence. Read the thing. It is frankly unbelievable to me that the Army allowed this unbalanced fool access to classified information.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/manning_enablers_s3uiOB919w0ohSMEgcmlsL
I think that Manning's commanding officers should be sacked for gross incompetence. If his commanding officers were following Army policy, then those responsible for forming the policy should be sacked.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 31, 2013, 08:40:22 AM
Quote from: LongBlade on July 31, 2013, 08:37:02 AM
What happens when the laws aren't being followed by the good guys?
Like I said, you resign, stop stealing classified information, and do things the legal way. You do not violate your oath/breach your contract (happy Brant?) and place lives at stake.
Bingo. +1
Quote from: airboy on July 31, 2013, 08:55:49 AM
Below is a link to a former Army Intelligence Officer's comments on Manning. The big take-away for me is how many signals Manning gave that he was not to be trusted to be in the uniform, much less with classified information and how the Army just ignored the evidence. Read the thing. It is frankly unbelievable to me that the Army allowed this unbalanced fool access to classified information.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/manning_enablers_s3uiOB919w0ohSMEgcmlsL
I think that Manning's commanding officers should be sacked for gross incompetence. If his commanding officers were following Army policy, then those responsible for forming the policy should be sacked.
That NY Post article was a disturbing read.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 31, 2013, 08:40:22 AM
Quote from: LongBlade on July 31, 2013, 08:37:02 AM
What happens when the laws aren't being followed by the good guys?
Like I said, you resign, stop stealing classified information, and do things the legal way. You do not violate your oath/breach your contract (happy Brant?) and place lives at stake.
i sure as hell dont want to get in an arguement with anyone - im just asking!!!
what is the legal way?
Quote from: undercovergeek on July 31, 2013, 09:21:47 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 31, 2013, 08:40:22 AM
Quote from: LongBlade on July 31, 2013, 08:37:02 AM
What happens when the laws aren't being followed by the good guys?
Like I said, you resign, stop stealing classified information, and do things the legal way. You do not violate your oath/breach your contract (happy Brant?) and place lives at stake.
i sure as hell dont want to get in an arguement with anyone - im just asking!!!
what is the legal way?
There are whistleblower protections for persons who divulge classified information which reveals abuse, fraud, illegality of government officials/agencies.
H.R. 3829 amends the Central Intelligence Agency Act and the Inspector General Act of 1978. It provides a means for covered executive branch employees and contractors to report to the Intelligence Committees certain serious abuses or violations of law or false statements to Congress that relate to "the administration or operation of an intelligence activity," as well as any reprisal or threat of reprisal relating to such a report. Under H.R. 3829, any employee or contractor who wishes to report such information to Congress would first make a report to the inspector general for the Central Intelligence Agency or their agency, as appropriate. If the complaint appears credible, the relevant inspector general would be required to forward the complaint to the head of his or her agency, and the head of the agency would generally be required to forward the report to the Intelligence Committees. Moreover, if the inspector general does not transmit the complaint to the head of the agency, the employee or contractor would generally be permitted to submit the complaint -- under defined conditions -- to the Committees directly.
but wouldnt you have to steal a document or two to prove what it is you say youve seen?
Quote from: undercovergeek on July 31, 2013, 09:28:46 AM
but wouldnt you have to steal a document or two to prove what it is you say youve seen?
No. There is a difference between supplying documentary evidence to the inspector general for the Central Intelligence Agency and supplying that evidence to Julian Assange. One is following proper protocol. The other is called theft, or treason.
That's all good on paper, and in principle I agree with you. I value my integrity as much as anyone here.
But the question needs to be asked, over the last decade were there any such resignations/reports of abuse and if so what was the end product?
It appears to me that Manning's case would have been much more suitable for abuse reporting.
In Snowden's case, it's my belief that *nothing* would change so long as this program was held in secrecy. Only by making it public and allowing the public to determine whether we believe we should be spied upon can politicians honestly represent the interests of their constituents. Prior to the breaking of this news precious few politicians had the moral courage to stand up and publicly oppose these programs. They appeared to be libertarian nuts valuing principle over national security. Only with the public release of the scope of these civil rights violations could politicians honestly have a conversation with their constituents as to what the true issue is and how it should be addressed.
More info, which supports Snowden's claim that sitting at his desk, he could pull up pretty much anything about anyone.
Quote"I, sitting at my desk," said Snowden, could "wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal email".
US officials vehemently denied this specific claim. Mike Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, said of Snowden's assertion: "He's lying. It's impossible for him to do what he was saying he could do."
But training materials for XKeyscore detail how analysts can use it and other systems to mine enormous agency databases by filling in a simple on-screen form giving only a broad justification for the search. The request is not reviewed by a court or any NSA personnel before it is processed.
source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data
I just went through those articles in the Post and Guardian. Boy, talk about ignorance being bliss... :(
Quote from: Anguille on July 31, 2013, 12:24:24 AM
Quote from: Martok on July 30, 2013, 05:51:28 PM
Quote from: Anguille on July 30, 2013, 05:34:20 PM
Quote from: Martok on July 30, 2013, 03:40:11 PM
Yeah, I have zero sympathy for him.
Too bad you don't play your turns in Armada 2526 as fast as you reply here ::)
Well if I could get them to actually show up, I would! (The turns appear in my Gmail inbox, but not the game itself.) :-[ Since I've continued to have issues, I felt it best to just let the rest of you guys play without me.
Seems to me that you've done something wrong in your mp settings, email password?...it is caps sensitive as well, so make sure your email is written exactely the same. Check it again, Sam. ;)
Believe me, man, I've already double- and triple-checked it. Everything in my MP settings (email addresses, passwords, etc.) are identical to how I've got them typed out (including upper/lower case), but still no joy. I've no doubt there is a mistake I've made somewhere, I just can't find it to save my life. :(
Have you tried using the NSA's XKeyscore to find it? I hear it can find anything!
Quote from: Martok on July 31, 2013, 07:40:41 PM
Believe me, man, I've already double- and triple-checked it. Everything in my MP settings (email addresses, passwords, etc.) are identical to how I've got them typed out (including upper/lower case), but still no joy. I've no doubt there is a mistake I've made somewhere, I just can't find it to save my life. :(
Don't worry...you know you can place the file in the right folder, right?
Back on topic. Isn't it ironic that this discussion happens in a country which was based on treason (to the crown of England)? ;)
Quote from: Anguille on August 02, 2013, 03:12:58 AM
Quote from: Martok on July 31, 2013, 07:40:41 PM
Believe me, man, I've already double- and triple-checked it. Everything in my MP settings (email addresses, passwords, etc.) are identical to how I've got them typed out (including upper/lower case), but still no joy. I've no doubt there is a mistake I've made somewhere, I just can't find it to save my life. :(
Don't worry...you know you can place the file in the right folder, right?
Back on topic. Isn't it ironic that this discussion happens in a country which was based on treason (to the crown of England)? ;)
Ha! Never thought of that. To the victor go the spoils and all that.
But, that puts a lot in context, which I have argued in other threads. That is simply this: the 4th Amendment was written by people who had lived through the revolutionary period when only abot a third of the population actively supported the rebellion. A third were apathetic and a third supported the crown.
Even given those gross levels of uncertainty - and remember Benedict Arnold was America's greatest general until he defected to Britain - we still wrote our constitution to be 100% clear that we didn't want the government to conduct fishing expeditions for evidence. That we have so greatly departed from our roots demonstrates how little confidence those in power have in our people and our system of government. Irony indeed.
Kinda explains a lot, when you think about it.
It was fun while it lasted. 200 years isn't bad for an unproven experiment.
Quote from: LongBlade on July 31, 2013, 08:02:07 AM
Quote from: Boggit on July 31, 2013, 06:34:31 AM
I'd suggest that there are a lot of people out there furious with Manning because he exposed their potentially criminal behaviour and they want to discredit and shut him up.
I see much the same with Snowden's case. I'm annoyed that from Snowden's disclosures that as a UK citizen, I am being spied on by the US Govt - not that I represent the slightest threat to the USA.
I used to think of the US as the good guys, but a lot of what has come out has exposed the fact that the US behaves very much like the bad guys, and for that Manning and Snowden are being targeted as the cause. The question is really is what will the US Govt do to bring to book those Manning and Snowden have exposed for disgracing the USA by their actions before the world? We've seen recent politically motivated trials in Russia, but this is the USA in 2013. Still perhaps the politicians will feel safer if they intimidate whistle blowers into silence?
You've posted several interesting thoughts.
Let's deal with the last first. So far, that we know of, none of these civil liberties intrusions has resulted in death in the US. There was the case a few years back of a Brazilian drug dealer who was killed in the UK. And there is still a question mark as to what happened with Michael Hastings, who died under curious circumstances. You may recall he was the journalist who wrote that unflattering article about Gen McCrystal.
QuoteIn the hours before his death, which was ruled an accident by the Los Angeles Police Department, Hastings emailed Wikileaks' lawyer Jennifer Robinson that he was being investigated by the federal government.
Staff Sgt. Joseph Biggs — who knew Hastings when he was embedded with Bigg's unit in Afghanistan — told KTLA Hastings had blind copied him on an email sent 15 hours before his death, notifying colleagues that federal officials were interviewing his "close friends and associates."
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/29/lawsuit-launched-against-doj-for-fbi-records-on-michael-hastings/#ixzz2acw1R3OC
I haven't seen any evidence other than allegations emerge to make me think his death was anything other than an accident, but it is a rather convenient coincidence. And you know what I like to say about these things: there are no coincidences in this business - except for all the coincidences.
------
The second issue I'd like to discuss is the malfeasance of people in government who are hidden by bureaucracy and secrecy. Opinions differ on the subject but to my eyes our government has grown far too large to be held properly accountable for actions or spending. It's as simple as that.
------
The third issue you raise is the most troubling. As a US citizen I find it deeply disturbing that one of the clearest statutes in our Bill of Rights has just be casually cast aside. I recognize that as a UK citizen you do not enjoy those rights. And therein lies the rub. If the US wants to spy on all of its citizens and is prohibited from doing so, who is to to prevent the UK from spying on all of us and passing along whatever conspiracy theories they wish to us? Multiply that a few times amongst our allies, with the UK, Germans, French, et al all spying on the US, and us returning the favor to them.
And then there is the case of the real problem: the Russians and Chinese and every other bad guy out there doing it, too. The picture emerges that our electronic lives are being panty raided by any and all. That no one has yet managed to bungle it all up in the light of day is a small miracle. That nothing more serious than the hopeful two exceptions noted above has taken place should not give us hope that further abuses will not be forthcoming. On the contrary it should be deeply disturbing that so many abuses go unchecked and outside the light of day.
The problem at its heart is that the good guys aren't behaving much like good guys right now. When the entire population of a democratic republic is treated as potential threat to the government then it's time to rethink who the good guys and bad guys might be.
We are of the same mind on this. :)
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 31, 2013, 08:05:03 AM
Quote from: Boggit on July 31, 2013, 06:34:31 AM
Quote from: Steelgrave on July 30, 2013, 07:41:30 PM
Snowden, I'm actually torn over. I lean towards whistleblower, absent any evidence that he passed (or passes) information directly to a foreign government. Manning, Manning violated his oath and disgraced his uniform. Leavenworth is going to be home for a very long time.
Recalling the clip that I recently saw on Channel 4 news posted by Manning of the Helicopter pilot killing unarmed civilians and gloating about it (below clip @3:06), I'm not that sure that Manning is as bad as he's being made out to be.
http://www.channel4.com/news/bradley-manning-wikileaks-verdict-us-whistle-blower-iraq
I'd suggest that there are a lot of people out there furious with Manning because he exposed their potentially criminal behaviour and they want to discredit and shut him up.
I see much the same with Snowden's case. I'm annoyed that from Snowden's disclosures that as a UK citizen, I am being spied on by the US Govt - not that I represent the slightest threat to the USA.
I used to think of the US as the good guys, but a lot of what has come out has exposed the fact that the US behaves very much like the bad guys, and for that Manning and Snowden are being targeted as the cause. The question is really is what will the US Govt do to bring to book those Manning and Snowden have exposed for disgracing the USA by their actions before the world? We've seen recent politically motivated trials in Russia, but this is the USA in 2013. Still perhaps the politicians will feel safer if they intimidate whistle blowers into silence? I'm no great fan of Assange, but I think he makes a valid point - http://www.channel4.com/news/bradley-manning-julian-assange-wikileaks-conviction-video
Does it remind you in a parallel way a little of the film Enemy of the State, where an NSA Director, using the power of the state goes to extreme lengths to cover up a murder?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_State_(film)
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 31, 2013, 08:05:03 AM
^This is a very cynical, narrow-minded view of the criminal acts of both of these individuals and quite frankly, I expect more from someone of your intelligence.
Well, maybe. We may have a difference of opinion. I'd agree that it's cynical, but I think that narrow minded is off the mark, since I see the wider implications of silencing obvious whistleblowing. The outlook for these two men is pretty dire, and the disadvantages far outweigh the benefits of disclosure. The motivation for disclosure is hardly likely to be personal benefit, but of conscience. Since the Nuremburg Trials, blindly following orders, and keeping to personal oaths is no longer necessarily a justification for acquiescence in the face of wrong doing in International law. In a way you miss the point of my post. Snowden and Manning are the small fry in this issue. If there was nothing unconscionable to hide, then they probably would'nt have anything worth disclosing, nor would the State have it's knickers in such a twist over this.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 31, 2013, 08:05:03 AM
Both Manning and Snowden took oaths and had jobs to do. They were trusted with classified information and both of them violated this trust. Moreover, it is foolish to believe that these two individuals divulged this classified information because of some idealistic belief that the "people have a right to know." Rather, they are self-interested dimwits who did not get enough hugs growing up, and did not feel like they were getting enough attention for their work. If they truly wanted to "do the right thing," then they should have resigned from their position, stopped stealing classified information, and do things the legal way. You are criticizing one person's criminal behavior, while commending another's.
I can't comment on their personalities, sense of personal value, since I don't know enough about them as individuals. I make the assumption that both were vetted, and considered of sufficiently high moral compass to be given access to classified documents. If they were a security risk then that begs questions of the system and the judgement of their superior officers/line controllers. If we take it that they were persons worthy of clearance for the documents they had access to, and clearly they were considered as such, then the decision to disclose must have appeared imperative and very much in the public interest. As I said earlier the "benefits" of disclosure do not outweigh the disadvantages of disclosure by any stretch of the imagination. Both had been considered intelligent enough to clear for classified documents, and would have been very aware of the personal risk they ran by disclosure. Manning is in prison and Snowden an exile.
As to doing the "right thing"- If they wanted the information to reach the public domain, I'm not certain that they could necessarily have been able, or wise to effectively do things the legal way, depending on the vested interests involved. It's quite possible they considered their disclosure as equivalent to a search and seizure order, preventing a suspect from having the opportunity to manipulate or destroy evidence. You should know as a lawyer that with politics it is entirely possible that things get kicked into the long grass, matters get delayed, people are "encouraged" to be quiet, evidence "disappears" etc.... Even in the UK we have the example of David Kelly the Weapons inspector conveniently committing suicide shortly (IIRC it was a day or two) before he was due to give evidence that was likely to lay blame at Tony Blair's door in respect of the Iraq War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert) I don't suppose that could ever happen in the US (sic ::))? Even in much less controversial circumstances, for example in medical negligence cases, it's not unkown for patient records have been "accidentally" destroyed/lost, or don't cover the critical points. This is nothing new, but imagine the political pressure on those in the system to manipulate/eliminate evidence if it is truly embarassing to the present administration.
Maybe Snowden and Manning did not have the confidence in the legal system that their disclosure would ever see the light of day?
Maybe they believed that there was no necessity to resign, and do things the way you suggest because they were actually whistleblowing, and therefore protected under the law? At this point there is a potential conflict between the military oath and the belief that the disclosure in some way in the wider interest of the US. If the oath is just a convenient mechanism to hide wrongdoing by individuals, then it begs the question of the purpose of the oath.
As to the commending/criticising comment - there is no doubt that Manning and Snowden are paying for their decision, but I don't see the people exposed facing court proceedings, or being on the front page for their actions. Whilst we can debate the merits of the Manning/Snowden cases ad infinitum - and I'd agree with you that there is a case to answer, it seems somewhat incongruous that the people exposed by their disclosure barely get a mention, much less any investigation or prosecution. Odd, don't you think - when even yourself acknowledge criminal behaviour by others?
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 31, 2013, 08:05:03 AM
You take a couple instances of classified materials released, and make it seem like these guys are heroes for making it public...but what about all the information they released that cost lives? What about all the information released regarding our overseas methods, our sources, who our friends are, who is cooperating with us. This information is extremely damaging, placed lives at risk and should be considered aiding the enemy.
What evidence do you adduce that their disclosure directly cost lives. AFAIK, no current operational data was released that could have compromised the safety of an operation? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10215383/No-one-killed-as-a-result-of-Bradley-Manning-leaks.html I'd agree that a lot of embarrassing information was released. The argument is that if you're embarassed about your methodologies, either don't do it, or don't cry about it like a child caught with their hand in the cookie jar when you're exposed for what you are doing. Even the military tribunal found Manning not guilty of assisting the enemy.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 31, 2013, 08:05:03 AM
You're upset you're being spied on? You needed Manning and Snowden to tell you that? The UK is spying on her allies as well. Get over it.
I don't like it. I think it's an utter waste of your tax dollars to spy on the vast majority of people who aren't a threat to you. It's poor PR for the US. Why alienate your friends by behaving badly towards them? Manning, and Snowden merely confirm what I already suspected. The UK may also be spying on her allies as you say, but that is speculation. We KNOW that the US is doing this under the PRISM program. I can't do anything about it, save discuss the issue and perhaps encourage people to think about the wider implications for civil liberty. I'd observe that it is a constitutionally unhealthy activity that is more at home with a totalitarian state than a liberal democracy.
On matters of civil liberty and it's erosion by the power of the state for the benefit of government, in the face of a silent, or acquiescent populace, I am minded to recall Martin Niemoeller's famous poem -
"First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."
If you value civil liberty, it behoves you to defend it, which includes defending whistleblowing that exposes criminality. The USA is a state that publicly (at least) prides itself on social values like civil liberty, yet it appears that when uncomfortable truths are disclosed the powers of state do their best to silence or persecute the messengers. Maybe Snowden and Manning did do things in a way that was procedurally wrong, but as I suggest earlier there may be cogent reasons for having done things the way they did. Substantively, they exposed a lot of wrongs that based on the public reaction so far, I'd suggest will probably not be addressed, nor is it likely that senior people in the adminsitration who have caused the USA substantive embarassment will be brought to book for political reasons. If anyone else does actually get prosecuted, I expect it will probably be a few sacrificial scapegoats who don't matter in the political scheme of things.
As Solon said "Laws are like spiders’ webs: if some light or powerless thing falls into them, it is caught, but a bigger one can break through and get away".
Quote from: airboy on July 31, 2013, 08:55:49 AM
Below is a link to a former Army Intelligence Officer's comments on Manning. The big take-away for me is how many signals Manning gave that he was not to be trusted to be in the uniform, much less with classified information and how the Army just ignored the evidence. Read the thing. It is frankly unbelievable to me that the Army allowed this unbalanced fool access to classified information.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/manning_enablers_s3uiOB919w0ohSMEgcmlsL
I think that Manning's commanding officers should be sacked for gross incompetence. If his commanding officers were following Army policy, then those responsible for forming the policy should be sacked.
+1 But an unlikely outcome for those at the top.
Quote from: LongBlade on August 02, 2013, 11:19:21 AM
It was fun while it lasted. 200 years isn't bad for an unproven experiment.
If you include the Second American Revolution (ACW) you could say it didn't even last 100 years... :'(
Quote from: Boggit on August 03, 2013, 11:05:10 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on August 02, 2013, 11:19:21 AM
It was fun while it lasted. 200 years isn't bad for an unproven experiment.
If you include the Second American Revolution (ACW) you could say it didn't even last 100 years... :'(
In truth I'm not exactly this pessimistic. Much like the McCarthy era I think the pendulum has swung too far, but it will inevitably swing back.
However, we are at a hazardous point. There still remain plenty of checks and balances to prevent us from becoming a totalitarian state, but we're closer to that point than we should have ever come.
Repeal of these programs was nearly successful in the House. I think the vote failed by five votes. Lawmakers are becoming uncomfortable with the scope of these programs. All we need is for some good men to speak up and things will change for the better.
Quote from: Boggit on July 31, 2013, 06:34:31 AM
Quote from: Steelgrave on July 30, 2013, 07:41:30 PM
Snowden, I'm actually torn over. I lean towards whistleblower, absent any evidence that he passed (or passes) information directly to a foreign government. Manning, Manning violated his oath and disgraced his uniform. Leavenworth is going to be home for a very long time.
Recalling the clip that I recently saw on Channel 4 news posted by Manning of the Helicopter pilot killing unarmed civilians and gloating about it (below clip @3:06), I'm not that sure that Manning is as bad as he's being made out to be.
http://www.channel4.com/news/bradley-manning-wikileaks-verdict-us-whistle-blower-iraq
I'd suggest that there are a lot of people out there furious with Manning because he exposed their potentially criminal behaviour and they want to discredit and shut him up.
I see much the same with Snowden's case. I'm annoyed that from Snowden's disclosures that as a UK citizen, I am being spied on by the US Govt - not that I represent the slightest threat to the USA.
I used to think of the US as the good guys, but a lot of what has come out has exposed the fact that the US behaves very much like the bad guys, and for that Manning and Snowden are being targeted as the cause. The question is really is what will the US Govt do to bring to book those Manning and Snowden have exposed for disgracing the USA by their actions before the world? We've seen recent politically motivated trials in Russia, but this is the USA in 2013. Still perhaps the politicians will feel safer if they intimidate whistle blowers into silence? I'm no great fan of Assange, but I think he makes a valid point - http://www.channel4.com/news/bradley-manning-julian-assange-wikileaks-conviction-video
I actually had a little Twitter exchange with Jon Snow of C4 just before the program. Of course the Goebbelsian like anti-American propaganda of C4 seemed to have some effect by showing just few glimpses of the helicopter video. A full video shows a group of armed men with AK47 and RPG (later recovered by the ground troops arriving on the scene) walking in empty streets near a firefight in progress. At least BBC changed the tune regarding the video recently from "unarmed" to "mostly unarmed". Most people do not take the time to look at the actual material, but buy the repeated BS. So there was no criminality on the part of the US. Assange's "arguments" are laughable, in light of deliberate lies perpetrated by him and his organization, while he hides in a closet of an authoritarian state's embassy. These people are so self absorbed, while living in a safe Western societies. I would love to see what would happen to him if he tried his "struggle" against a real authoritarian regime.
Maybe if the people of North Korea had TVs, and internet- along with the disposable income that it would take to make advertising pay-off, then yes perhaps Mr. Assange would take on the North Korean regime! ;)
Quote from: Centurion40 on August 06, 2013, 08:51:22 AM
Maybe if the people of North Korea had TVs, and internet- along with the disposable income that it would take to make advertising pay-off, then yes perhaps Mr. Assange would take on the North Korean regime! ;)
That's right.
Quote from: LongBlade on August 04, 2013, 09:28:12 AM
Quote from: Boggit on August 03, 2013, 11:05:10 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on August 02, 2013, 11:19:21 AM
It was fun while it lasted. 200 years isn't bad for an unproven experiment.
If you include the Second American Revolution (ACW) you could say it didn't even last 100 years... :'(
In truth I'm not exactly this pessimistic. Much like the McCarthy era I think the pendulum has swung too far, but it will inevitably swing back.
However, we are at a hazardous point. There still remain plenty of checks and balances to prevent us from becoming a totalitarian state, but we're closer to that point than we should have ever come.
Repeal of these programs was nearly successful in the House. I think the vote failed by five votes. Lawmakers are becoming uncomfortable with the scope of these programs. All we need is for some good men to speak up and things will change for the better.
Pretty much the way I see it too.
Quote from: pawelj on August 06, 2013, 06:08:56 AM
Quote from: Boggit on July 31, 2013, 06:34:31 AM
Quote from: Steelgrave on July 30, 2013, 07:41:30 PM
Snowden, I'm actually torn over. I lean towards whistleblower, absent any evidence that he passed (or passes) information directly to a foreign government. Manning, Manning violated his oath and disgraced his uniform. Leavenworth is going to be home for a very long time.
Recalling the clip that I recently saw on Channel 4 news posted by Manning of the Helicopter pilot killing unarmed civilians and gloating about it (below clip @3:06), I'm not that sure that Manning is as bad as he's being made out to be.
http://www.channel4.com/news/bradley-manning-wikileaks-verdict-us-whistle-blower-iraq
I'd suggest that there are a lot of people out there furious with Manning because he exposed their potentially criminal behaviour and they want to discredit and shut him up.
I see much the same with Snowden's case. I'm annoyed that from Snowden's disclosures that as a UK citizen, I am being spied on by the US Govt - not that I represent the slightest threat to the USA.
I used to think of the US as the good guys, but a lot of what has come out has exposed the fact that the US behaves very much like the bad guys, and for that Manning and Snowden are being targeted as the cause. The question is really is what will the US Govt do to bring to book those Manning and Snowden have exposed for disgracing the USA by their actions before the world? We've seen recent politically motivated trials in Russia, but this is the USA in 2013. Still perhaps the politicians will feel safer if they intimidate whistle blowers into silence? I'm no great fan of Assange, but I think he makes a valid point - http://www.channel4.com/news/bradley-manning-julian-assange-wikileaks-conviction-video
I actually had a little Twitter exchange with Jon Snow of C4 just before the program. Of course the Goebbelsian like anti-American propaganda of C4 seemed to have some effect by showing just few glimpses of the helicopter video. A full video shows a group of armed men with AK47 and RPG (later recovered by the ground troops arriving on the scene) walking in empty streets near a firefight in progress. At least BBC changed the tune regarding the video recently from "unarmed" to "mostly unarmed". Most people do not take the time to look at the actual material, but buy the repeated BS. So there was no criminality on the part of the US. Assange's "arguments" are laughable, in light of deliberate lies perpetrated by him and his organization, while he hides in a closet of an authoritarian state's embassy. These people are so self absorbed, while living in a safe Western societies. I would love to see what would happen to him if he tried his "struggle" against a real authoritarian regime.
You make a good point. Of course you can only really comment on the evidence presented. From what you say they were being very selective. I must confess that recently I've noticed C$ news being far more sensationalist and confrontational compared to how they used to be a few months ago, when critique and analysis seemed more measured and thoughtful.
Assange is a strange fish. I don't see why the Equador wishes to harbour a potential rapist. Assange should be made to answer the Swedish allegations.
You point about Assange is accurate. He would either be imprisoned or wind up dead in a totalitarian regime. Some of what he says resonates, but he isn't short of BS as well for his own agenda.
Good post Pawel. :)
Sweden has some broad and vague definitions of rape and sexual molestation.
gross rape (4-10 years imprisonment), ordinary rape (2-4 years imprisonment), minor rape (0-4 years imprisonment)
• Present Swedish law identifies all men as potential rapists. When someone has sex with a person that is in a helpless state because of unconsciousness, sleep or being under the influence of drugs, it will be considered to fall under rape.
• Swedish law considers unprotected sex as rape.
Assange is wanted for questioning over a dispute over consensual, but unprotected sex with two women and his subsequent refusal to undergo STI screening.
That is certainly boorish behaviour, but applying a label to the man that is typically reserved for violent sexual predators, seems unfair. Assange may be many things and I believe he is an egotistical troublemaker, but I do not think that he presents a danger to women, unless he happens to be in Sweden.
Quote from: Phobos on August 07, 2013, 06:30:38 PM
Sweden has some broad and vague definitions of rape and sexual molestation.
gross rape (4-10 years imprisonment), ordinary rape (2-4 years imprisonment), minor rape (0-4 years imprisonment)
• Present Swedish law identifies all men as potential rapists. When someone has sex with a person that is in a helpless state because of unconsciousness, sleep or being under the influence of drugs, it will be considered to fall under rape.
• Swedish law considers unprotected sex as rape.
Assange is wanted for questioning over a dispute over consensual, but unprotected sex with two women and his subsequent refusal to undergo STI screening.
That is certainly boorish behaviour, but applying a label to the man that is typically reserved for violent sexual predators, seems unfair. Assange may be many things and I believe he is an egotistical troublemaker, but I do not think that he presents a danger to women, unless he happens to be in Sweden.
Interesting point, Phobos. :)
I didn't know Sweden had such a wide definition of rape. My understanding, based on English law, was that it was the absence of consent to sexual intercourse, but clearly Sweden has a remarkably creative approach to the crime. Based on what you say half the population of Sweden looks like they will be convicted sometime in their lifetime... ;)
Anyway, I agree with your point about Assange in the light of the Swedish definition of rape.
Just out of curiosity, is unconsensual intercourse using a condom not rape under Swedish law? In the UK the whole matter hinges on consent, and is notoriously difficult to prove, particularly if it alleged by the defendant that sex was consensual, but that consent was withdrawn after the sexual act - in which case rape has not occurred since the act and the absence of consent must be contemporaneous. Usually injuries are taken into account as evidence, but then what of consensual role-play/rough sex? Difficult one.
if a say "screw Sweden" am I breaking the law?
Not from South Florida. You have to travel to Scania first. Then the cops might as well cuff you while still at the airport gate when you spot the first few Swedish girls...
I have not paid much attention to the case recently, but as I reside in Australia, I recall some of the media reports on the case (Assange is Australian). The circumstances of the initial investigation against him were detailed in depth locally. The two alleged victims, once they both discovered that they had slept with Assange, asked him to be tested for STI's. When he refused, they went to the police together and asked that charges be laid against him in order to compel him to be tested.
I know very little of the Swedish justice system, other than what I have read and seen in the media, as well as anecdotes from friends that have travelled there. All I know about how sexual crimes are handled, is that the matter is supposed to be resolved privately and in a closed court. As details of the case have been leaked to the media, this obviously has not happened. It also calls the veracity of the leaked details of Assange's investigation in to question, as Swedish investigators and legal professionals are prevented from officially commenting on the details of the case that have been released to the media.
I may have been mislead by false reporting and I could be wrong. I was simply responding to the comment that Assange was a potential rapist. He is certainly an irresponsible man-whore, among other things, but I do not think he is that kind of a predator. I think that a character assassination on the man takes focus away from the issues surrounding WikiLeaks and conflates two separate and complicated issues.
As for Sweden's rape and sexual misconduct laws...From what I understand the burden of proof is based on the accused once the matter goes to trial. Guilty until proven innocent. The reformed sexual offences laws have caused a great deal of controversy in the nation. I have heard people jokingly comment that they need to get a signed statement before engaging in coitus with a new friend, as well as some off colour jokes like "Spill your coffee?...That's rape in Sweden." I am sure that any interested people can do their own research on the matter and form their own conclusions. Sorry for taking the thread off-topic.
not off topic at all.
Im just never traveling to Sweden with Gus or Windy.
I love how Manning's defence was that he wanted to spark a debate on US foreign policy. I guess he did not notice the myriad of columns written in press and on the web, not to mention various chatrooms and message boards, plus multitude of hours spent discussing the subject of various TV programs. And of course there is this place called THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, where they discuss and vote of foreign policy issues all the fucking time. But hey, obviously we needed Bradley Manning to spark the "REAL" debate.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on August 07, 2013, 08:09:05 PM
if a say "screw Sweden" am I breaking the law?
only if you say it without protection............
as an aside, as if they'd let YOU into sweden!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgVxrxKMHOI
Manning gets 35 years.
Quote
Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, 25, who gave reams of classified information to WikiLeaks, faced up to 90 years in prison. He was credited with 1,294 days already served and was and be dishonorably discharged. He could be eligible for parole before he reaches the age of 40.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/21/manning-gets-35-years-in-wikileaks-case/?test=latestnews#ixzz2ccFfKghT
What a bunch of bs. He should never, ever have had even a chance of getting out.
like he's not gonna get shivved.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on August 21, 2013, 07:13:58 PM
like she's not gonna get shivved.
Fixed that for ya.
QuoteBradley Manning plans to live as a woman named Chelsea and wants to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible, the soldier said Thursday, a day after being sentenced to 35 years in prison for sending classified material to WikiLeaks.
Manning announced the decision in a written statement provided to NBC's "Today" show, asking supporters to refer to him by his new name and the feminine pronoun. The statement was signed "Chelsea E. Manning."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/22/bradley-manning-wants-to-live-as-woman-be-called-chelsea/?test=latestnews#ixzz2ci2IEZ7q
Quote from: bayonetbrant on August 21, 2013, 07:13:58 PM
like he's not gonna get shivved.
if hes lucky a shiv will be all thats stuck in him/her.... it
Quote from: LongBlade on August 22, 2013, 09:44:31 AM
Quote from: bayonetbrant on August 21, 2013, 07:13:58 PM
like she's not gonna get shivved.
Fixed that for ya.
QuoteBradley Manning plans to live as a woman named Chelsea and wants to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible, the soldier said Thursday, a day after being sentenced to 35 years in prison for sending classified material to WikiLeaks.
Manning announced the decision in a written statement provided to NBC's "Today" show, asking supporters to refer to him by his new name and the feminine pronoun. The statement was signed "Chelsea E. Manning."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/22/bradley-manning-wants-to-live-as-woman-be-called-chelsea/?test=latestnews#ixzz2ci2IEZ7q
Let me guess, we as the tax payers will be paying for these procedures while he is locked up ........... >:(
A lot more if you follow the link. Where that vomit icon. :pullhair: :tickedoff:
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/obama-commutes-most-of-chelsea-mannings-35-year-sentenc-1791303210
QuoteObama Commutes Most Of Chelsea Manning's 35-Year Sentence
President Barack Obama has commuted a large portion of Chelsea Manning's sentence, the New York Times reports. Instead of having to stay in prison until 2045, Manning will be released on May 17 of this year, just five months from now.
Obama's a sexist. He's now saying being a woman for 5 months is as much punishment as being a man for 35 years. :timeout: Maybe it's because he's spent the last 8 years living with 4 women in the White House but damn man. Come on. Just be happy you'll finally get a chance to get your own bathroom now.
WTF?
Pardoning Edward Snowden would have made more sense. Say what you will about Snowden but at least he thought he was doing it all for the greater good while having quite a lot to lose. The big takeaway I get from Manning is that (s)he was trying to get even with the World for getting picked on.
Treason clearly is not something that bother's Obama and we can all draw our own conclusions as to why that might be. And I have to wonder if Manning's sex change was an influence in any way. Maybe that's what Snowden should have done to draw the sympathy card from Obama.
Seriously, I can't wait to see the White House door hit this guy's ass on the way out.....
Absolutely disgraceful.
Quote from: Steelgrave on January 17, 2017, 08:55:42 PM
Treason clearly is not something that bother's Obama and we can all draw our own conclusions as to why that might be.
What "bother's" me i's your abu'se of apostrophe's
Did you just taunt Heisenberg?
Obama came into office saying "diplomacy" and "acting with allies" is so amazingly important.
Being able to have confidential give & take with allies (and neutrals & enemies) is essential to diplomacy.
The huge confidential information dump that "it" (whatever sex it is) gave the world hammered our diplomatic efforts. If you gave me that pile of data and paid my consulting fees, I could discern a lot about many things including:
a] US positions in reality vs public perceptions.
b] What gets the US attention (and what is ignored)
c] The way the US uses information to make diplomatic decisions
d] The decision process of US diplomacy
Having that information gives you a treasure trove of the actual decision making process & biases.
As wargamers, we know how valuable knowing how your opponent (or ally) makes decisions can be.
They should have shot Manning. Obama let him go. For somebody supposedly behind "diplomacy," Obama gave a big pat on the back to the single most damaging action in US diplomacy in the last 20 years.
Quote from: Staggerwing on January 17, 2017, 08:14:09 PM
WTF?
Pardoning Edward Snowden would have made more sense. Say what you will about Snowden but at least he thought he was doing it all for the greater good while having quite a lot to lose. The big takeaway I get from Manning is that (s)he was trying to get even with the World for getting picked on.
Don't know that Snowden would have made more sense. That dude ran to Russia and released information that had nothing to do with "the greater good".
Quote from: mirth on January 17, 2017, 11:06:57 PM
Did you just taunt Heisenberg?
He should be careful....after all, I am the one who knock's
(and yes, I did that one on purpose) ::)
http://www.duffelblog.com/2015/04/army-transfers-chelsea-manning/
Transferred to the Marines to feel more like a woman? Can't wait to hear what Jarhead has to say about this little gem. This is what I get out of bed in the morning for. :clap: I'm sure the Marines can manage the change from man to woman for him without a lot of red tape. Red bandages however..... :coolsmiley:
^ Methinks you need to read the article, Sir.
I did. Twice. I don't see any contradiction in my post. If Chel-Brad wants to become more female-oriented, then the Marines are perfect for identifying and prioritizing gender choices, as was pointed-out in the article. I'm sure the whole 'National Betrayal' thing won't interfere with their choices of method.
stashing to read later
https://huwieler.net/2017/01/18/chelsea-manning-in-basic-combat-training/
^That's a damning article....makes me want to bitch slap Manning even more than I already did.
Wit
Quote from: Steelgrave on January 19, 2017, 08:31:35 PM
^That's a damning article....makes me want to bitch slap Manning even more than I already did.
With a full Jerry can.