After years of abuse in confinement from denying him a charge to denying him counsel, Pfc. Bradley Manning finally had a trial on the most serious charge against him: aiding the enemy. He was convicted on lesser charges. The verdict should again focus attention on the mistreatment of Manning by the Obama Administration for leaking classified reports and diplomatic cables. Many of these documents showed that the U.S. government was lying to the public and to its allies.
Manning previously pleaded guilty to 10 of 22 counts of lesser charges in giving the documents to Wikileaks. He could still face a long sentence and the Obama Administration has clearly worked to make an example of him after he embarrassed the government with both the public and allies.
The documented abuse of Manning by the Obama Administration while in custody will result in a four-month credit toward his sentencing. Yet there has been virtually no demand for the punishment of those responsible for the abuse.
The acquittal is a victory for military justice. There was never any evidence of an intent to aid the enemy and the overcharging of the case was indicative of the excessive response of the Administration — the same pattern shown with Snowden and Assange. Of course, those false or controversial communications in these documents have not been the focus of coverage by the media.
The verdict is also a vindication for the defense in taking a plea on the earlier charges to focus on the most serious charge.
Source: Politico
Here’s more “patriotic” leaks from Bradley Manning:
Some of China’s top academics and human rights activists are being attacked as “rats” and “spies” after their names were revealed as U.S. Embassy sources in the unredacted WikiLeaks cables that have now been posted online. The release of the previously protected names has sparked an online witch-hunt by Chinese nationalist groups, with some advocating violence against those now known to have met with U.S. Embassy staff. “When the time comes, they should be arrested and killed,” reads one typical posting on a prominent neo-Maoist website.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/leaked-cables-spark-witch-hunt-for-chinese-rats/article594194/
Manning never claimed he was innocent. In fact, he pled guilty to some charges and was found guilty of others. Why should we consider him a hero?
Juliet:
That’s my read on it, too.
I’ll have to find the transcript of that chat. But if that’s the case, I take back that part about bragging.
I certainly think he deserves to be released based on his pre-trial isolation/torture.
Tony C:
“He did not disclose a military plan or attack about to occur, he disclosed cover-ups and lies to the American public that the “enemy” already knew about because they had already been attacked.”
******************************
That’s not all he did. According to ABC News, “another [leaked cable]said Sweden engaged in military and intelligence cooperation with the U.S. in contradiction with its public stance of nonalignment.” This type of information is very damaging to US interests and those of our allies. It didn’t have to be leaked as it adds nothing to the dialog about government cover-ups. In fact, it detracts from our abilities around the world to marshall the aid of our friends. This is not patriotism but simply wanting to leak for leakings sake. This should be punished and will be.
Squeeky: I would bet that Manning didn’t have time to read all 250,000 of the cables either.
Manning had full time access to precisely the communications he leaked, I think it is fair to presume that he had enough experience with the cables to know they would not contain any military plans or real secrets, by virtue of the fact that in years of reading he had never seen anything of that sensitive a nature.
He knew he was leaking State Department cables that had already been made; not strategic military communications. By experience and by the nature of the communications there was no reason for Manning to suspect these cables had any military significance of any kind.
And they did not; as evidenced by the fact that the government could not find any smoking gun in the leaks to which they could point as clear aid to the enemy, even as loosely as they define “enemy.”
You can attack Manning’s character all you want, I infer from the character of your insults you are a homophobe that doesn’t think a gay man can be a hero or have a conscience.
Manning is a hero. His stated purpose was to inform people of the true reasons for the wars, and to start a national conversation about the motives based on reality as reflected in the real communications about the war.
I see no reason to characterize his communications as bragging, histrionics, or fame-seeking. He specifically said he was trying to spark worldwide discussion, debate and reform. His admission to Adrian Lamo was oblique, in response to a query, and he thought he was talking to a fellow dissident that he could trust; he did not expect to be betrayed by Lamo, therefore he did not make that oblique admission in order to seek fame or publicity.
He was a PFC! He was, by definition, completely inexperienced. He hacked into information he didn’t otherwise have. I’d bet every dollar I’ve ever made, and ever will make, that he didn’t read one-fifth of what he released.
Scared, confused kid. NOT a hero.
sonofthunderboanerges 1, July 30, 2013 at 9:24 pm
You actually need citations for the obvious? Oh well here you go:
Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies. Manchester U. Press, 1975, p. 173
“…wearing his Phrygian cap, issues forth from the rocky mass. As yet only his bare torso is visible. In each hand he raises aloft a lighted torch and, as an unusual detail, red flames shoot out all around him from the petra genetrix.”
Justin Martyr, also known as Saint Justin (c. 100 – 165 CE), said it is all a diabolic plan by you-know-who… which it obviously is. Could it be…?
===================================
Hey, should I call you SOT or SOB (e.g. we call Otteray Scribe OS and Anonymously Yours AY)?
I asked you for a quote supporting your assertion that there is no “ancient” references to Mithras being born of a virgin.
You quoted from one of the many sources I quoted from in the links I provided, but the quote was inapposite.
Thus, you cite to no authority to support you assertion, therefore we are left to accept a notion that you are a self-authenticating expert.
The “expert clarity” you provided in your thingy to JT belies your alleged self-authenticating expertise:
Thus your naked statement “No ancient source gives such a birth myth for him” is useless in the face of:
(The Virgin MOMCOM – 6, quoted from links therein). This well known scholarship is also true for the other 11 mimicry points I made of him.
PS. the SNL skits by Dana Carey you used are also not ancient, scholarly, or worthy of serious consideration as to the history of Mithras.
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter 1, July 30, 2013 at 10:07 pm
Dredd:
That was an interesting post. I have similar ideas about the relationship between Sunday School and conservative/libertarian economic theories, that gross income disparity is a physical manifestation of the sinfulness of the poor. My goodness, there are lots of people who think a credit score is a good indication of the degree of morality, and the higher it is, the more moral the person. Meanwhile, I suspect that it is often inversely related, and perhaps even an indicia of sociopathy. Have you ever heard of a guy named Carl Jung??? Because he has some ideas about things called archetypes, and how people get caught up in patterned thinking. I think most people have archetypes in mind, and tend to fit their opinions about other people into those archetypes.
…
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
================================
Yes, I have read Jung.
But the coming revolution concerning the realm of human cognition, both conscious and subconscious, will dwarf all of the understanding of all of the 19th and 20th century folk.
They were so unaware of so much.
TonyC:
You said,
” I do not have time to read 250,000 cables; but I have not heard any reporters claiming any future military plans were revealed by Manning, and I presume the “not aiding the enemy” finding means the government couldn’t find any of that, either.”
I would bet that Manning didn’t have time to read all 250,000 of the cables either. Which would mean that he was just releasing information in bulk, and not caring one whit what was in them. If I am right, that is another difference between a heroic whistleblower, and a histrionic little twit.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I don’t think you can put Snowden and Manning in the same category. Had Manning only released documents that indicated a crime or some sort of corruption was taking place, that would be one thing, and he should certainly be treated as a whistleblower. But that’s not what he did. Remember that the only reason he was caught was because he was bragging about what he’d done to some hacker who turned him in. Heroes don’t brag.
Great link Elaine. It confirms what I read in the Flyboys book.
This is the latest from Greenwald. It is an amazing account of how completely the govt. is monitoring its enemies–us!
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data
Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Necessary?
by Robert Freeman
8/6/2006
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0806-25.htm
Excerpt;
Few issues in American history – perhaps only slavery itself – are as charged as the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. Was it necessary? Merely posing the question provokes indignation, even rage. Witness the hysterical shouting down of the 1995 Smithsonian exhibit that simply dared discuss the question fifty years after the act. Today, another eleven years on, Americans still have trouble coming to terms with the truth about the bombs.
But anger is not argument. Hysteria is not history. The decision to drop the bomb has been laundered through the American myth-making machine into everything from self-preservation by the Americans to concern for the Japanese themselves-as if incinerating two hundred thousand human beings in a second was somehow an act of moral largesse.
Yet the question will not die, nor should it: was dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki a military necessity? Was the decision justified by the imperative of saving lives or were there other motives involved?
The question of military necessity can be quickly put to rest. “Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary.” Those are not the words of a latter-day revisionist historian or a leftist writer. They are certainly not the words of an America-hater. They are the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and future president of the United States. Eisenhower knew, as did the entire senior U.S. officer corps, that by mid 1945 Japan was defenseless.
After the Japanese fleet was destroyed at Leyte Gulf in October 1944, the U.S. was able to carry out uncontested bombing of Japan’s cities, including the hellish firebombings of Tokyo and Osaka. This is what Henry H. Arnold, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces, meant when he observed, “The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.” Also, without a navy, the resource-poor Japanese had lost the ability to import the food, oil, and industrial supplies needed to carry on a World War.
As a result of the naked futility of their position, the Japanese had approached the Russians, seeking their help in brokering a peace to end the War. The U.S. had long before broken the Japanese codes and knew that these negotiations were under way, knew that the Japanese had for months been trying to find a way to surrender.
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, reflected this reality when he wrote, “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace.the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.” Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, said the same thing: “The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.”
@sonof…your response is full of hate but it is interesting that people like you call anyone an Obama hater if he or she does not like him because of his character of being deceitful. next thing I will be hearing from people like you would be “racist” because otherwise no black man can be deceitful from the logic of a typical Obama supporter
If you read the book “Flyboys” the fire bombing of Japan killed just about as many people as the two nuclear bombs. The two nukes just did it quicker. Did the Nukes save a lot of lives? Hard to say because there were some in the Air Force that were in favor of continuing the fire bombing in lieu of the Nuke attacks and they were likely to bring about an end of the war relatively soon without the use of nukes.
**
mespo727272 1, July 31, 2013 at 9:52 am
I’m ambivalent on Manning. While every nation needs whistleblowers, you can’t have people leaking things for their own purposes. One of the commenters above makes a good point, but I’d use another similar example. Assume you are the on the ground crew of the Enola Gay about to set off for Hiroshima with “Little Boy” attached. A pang of conscience compels you to report the mission due to your opposition to nuclear war. It hits the media and the mission is scrubbed. Now thousands of American soldiers will likely die in more island hopping and house to house searches. What was the moral choice? Is our leaker heroic or just naive? Where is Manning on the heroic/naive scale? **
Mespo,
Are you not being naive assuming you/I actually understand what really happened regarding WW2?
Was the Japanese Govt offering to surrender weeks before the 1st nuke was dropped?
One thing is very clear when studying history, that large key pieces of the official story & media reports are propaganda BS.
There was so much info Manning released that I’ve not seen much of it.
One piece I did see though was the video that appears that multiple war crimes & crimes against humanity had taken place & it wasn’t being reported to the public.
He could have ignored it, but as a humanbeing he was compelled to release it.
If you witnessed mass murder is it your position that you would ignore it & not report the crimes you witnessed?
Mespo: A pang of conscience compels you to report the mission due to your opposition to nuclear war. … Now thousands of American soldiers will likely die …
And that would be treason. But that is a red herring, an extreme case that is NOT what Manning did, and apparently not his intent. He did not disclose a military plan or attack about to occur, he disclosed cover-ups and lies to the American public that the “enemy” already knew about because they had already been attacked.
Unlike your scenario, Manning was found not guilty of aiding the enemy; in any “imminent attack” scenario the enemy is in fact aided; both if the mission is scrubbed or if they gain time and intelligence that lets them prepare for the attack or evacuate before the attack.
If you want a hypothetical, you need to come up with something a little closer to what Manning actually leaked; diplomatic cables exposing corruption and payoffs in the past, not legal military plans and missions yet to happen. I do not have time to read 250,000 cables; but I have not heard any reporters claiming any future military plans were revealed by Manning, and I presume the “not aiding the enemy” finding means the government couldn’t find any of that, either.
I think Tony C. has the best take on this and makes clear why we should support Manning.
I’m going to segue for a moment by introducing some scholarly speculation on the very real impact of Snowden’s revelations:
The NSA and Internet Balkanization by Henry Farrel
” … European politicians are responding to pressure over the NSA by trying to beef up European privacy law still further. One of the reasons that companies like Google and Microsoft have based themselves in Ireland is because the Irish DPA is … more understanding of their needs … than many of his counterparts on the continent. Germany is now pushing to eliminate this national level flexibility in interpretation.
The results are clear. Cooperation with the NSA is probably illegal under European law as it stands, and the law as it is likely to be amended. Big US firms like Google, Microsoft and Facebook may find themselves in the unappealing position of facing hefty European fines if they continue to cooperate with the NSA, and legal difficulties in the US if they stop cooperating. They are unsurprisingly quite unhappy with this turn of events. They are likely to be more unhappy still if (as is entirely likely) DPAs threaten action against European firms who outsource, say, email services to Google. And this is not to get into questions of government procurement (where national IT firms are likely to see a big boost in business thanks to security fears – if Microsoft is cooperating with the US government, do you really want to have it running your internal servers).”
http://themonkeycage.org/2013/07/30/the-nsa-and-internet-balkanization/
SOTB … what do you think of Farrel’s speculation? BTW, He’s an associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.
What mesop (and others) said as I, also, am ambivalent on Manning
Mark,
As someone with some familial experience in that example you gave, the necessity of war does not negate the personal cost of immoral or amoral actions compelled upon soldiers. Wrong is wrong even if it is necessary within the context of war. What Manning did was not tactically crippling to the war effort. It was embarrassing to the liars in leadership. That’s what he’s being punished for: embarrassing his “superiors”. But what he exposed was a wrong. And a wrong greater than his wrong in exposing it. I say “heroically naive”.
What Tony said.