Manning verdict is in

[Boggit]

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.

[Boggit]

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... :'(

[LongBlade]

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. 

[pawelj]

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.

[Centurion40]

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!  ;)

[pawelj]

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.

[Boggit]

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.

[Boggit]

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. :)

[Phobos]

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.

[Boggit]

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.

[GDS_Starfury]

if a say "screw Sweden" am I breaking the law?

[Staggerwing]

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...

[Phobos]

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.

[GDS_Starfury]

not off topic at all.

Im just never traveling to Sweden with Gus or Windy.

[pawelj]

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.