Manning verdict is in

[Centurion40]

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.

[undercovergeek]

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?

[Jarhead0331]

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.

[undercovergeek]

but wouldnt you have to steal a document or two to prove what it is you say youve seen?

[Jarhead0331]

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.

[LongBlade]

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.

[LongBlade]

More info, which supports Snowden's claim that sitting at his desk, he could pull up pretty much anything about anyone.

"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

[Martok]

I just went through those articles in the Post and Guardian.  Boy, talk about ignorance being bliss...  :( 

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.  :( 

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

Have you tried using the NSA's XKeyscore to find it?  I hear it can find anything!

[Anguille]

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)?  ;)

[LongBlade]

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.

[Centurion40]

Kinda explains a lot, when you think about it.

[LongBlade]

It was fun while it lasted. 200 years isn't bad for an unproven experiment.

[Boggit]

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.

In 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. :)

[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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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".