Bradley Manning Hit With New Charges; Could Face Death Penalty
from the going-a-bit-far? dept
After being unable to convince Bradley Manning to lie about his "relationship" with Julian Assange, the government has decided to up the pressure on Manning by filing another 22 charges against him, including putting him at risk of facing the death penalty -- though, they insist that they will not ask for the death penalty. In the end, however, it is up to the judge, so whether or not the feds ask for it, he is still technically facing the death penalty. In addition, the new charges could put him in jail for life.Some of the charges seem like clear exaggerations. Government officials have already admitted that the State Department cable leaks have done little to actually damage US diplomatic relationships or put anyone in danger. Yet, the charges certainly suggest both things are true. There's a charge for "aiding the enemy," charges for "theft of public property," the inevitable (but highly questionable) "computer fraud" charges and (of course) Espionage Act charges. It'll take some time before the reasonings behind all of the charges are understood, but the point is pretty clear: the feds don't want any more whistleblowers, so they're throwing the book at Manning as a warning shot to anyone else who wants to expose government misdeeds.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bradley manning, death penalty, espionage, whistleblowing, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hafta agree with the AC
But this does seem the now common case of piling on the charges.
It's especially ironic because those leaked cables seem to have played a material role in the revolutions in (at least) Tunisia and Egypt both of which seem to be in the US's long term interest!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hafta agree with the AC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hafta agree with the AC
One basic petition is to Amend our Constitution to make some things explicit.
I think Jury Nullification is going to be one of those items.
[I want to keep that petition small and with core things "everyone" can agree upon (eg, corporations are not humans; life before property; punishment must fit the crime...).]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hafta agree with the AC
No matter how you feel about the benefits of his actions, he did break the law in many, many ways. Do you want a constitutional amendment to have some sort of cost / benefit calculation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hafta agree with the AC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hafta agree with the AC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well ... the ones we didn't murder anyway.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22537.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Repercussions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Media Based Fraud
I think the usefulness of the computer fraud laws (as proven by how often they come up) means we should extend them to other kinds of media. I propose a "Paper Fraud" law. Then if a computer was used to print a fraudulent document we can charge criminals under both laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not only that but if it was "public property" he already as well as every other American citizen, owns it and by making it public has not done anything.
These charges conflict with each other, but then again so does the entire case.
As for the "aiding the enemy" charge.. What enemy? or should I say "which enemy since they have not specified whom, what or where that enemy is, and you cannot really have an "enemy" without a legal declaration of war. hmmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparently the ends justify the means,,, at least to our current politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Two wars of choice.
Numerous civilians killed on the basis of lies.
More terrorism and terrorists in the world because of the two things above.
It is getting to the point where I think that there needs to be a revolution in America to get these American Exceptionalists out of power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So let me get this straight...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So let me get this straight...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So let me get this straight...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So let me get this straight...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So let me get this straight...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So let me get this straight...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So let me get this straight...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So let me get this straight...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So let me get this straight...
Public Enemy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So let me get this straight...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So let me get this straight...
He wasn’t though, was he?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/03/02/docs-reveal-tsa-plan-to-body-scan-pedestria ns-train-passengers/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The oil currency lock-in is our last remaining real point of influence and the Chinese are making a VERY good case to the international community about why that should be removed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/03/02/docs-reveal-tsa-plan-to-body-scan-pedestria ns-train-passengers/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Allegiance to the people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
~Silver Knight (.hack//Legend of the Twilight Bracelet)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A) Anime quotes are notoriously nonsensical. (I used to think it was the culture gap, but no....it's really just the anime)
B) This particular quote is pretty vapid. Punish those who stand up to you? Yes, that's the usual way of things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That doesn't make it right. Punishment is supposed to be for breaking the law, not challenging authority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He made a mistake bragging about and that is the only lesson to learn here, be a whistleblower but do it quietly or go all out at take a stand but go out with the certainty that they will destroy you as a person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is one aspect of this matter that seems to be agreed upon by all sides, i.e., this soldier released on his own volition classified information with apparently no thought having been given to the contents of each document that was released. It appears fortuitous that many of the documents are apparently innocuous. Whether or not this is true of all documents remains undetermined.
The problem here is that an individual chose to make a unilateral decision with what appears to be little, if any, thought to the potential consequences of what the public disclosure of these documents might do to US national security and that of its allies.
Sorry, but at this time I am not prepared to refer to him as an american hero, and those suggesting they can make this decision on the basis of currently published information are putting the cart before the horse.
There will be a trial, evidence will be presented by the prosecutor and the defense attorneys, and then a decision rendered as to whether or not he is guilty of one or more of the charges. Until then I will reserve judgment, and others that they should do likewise.
As for the reference in the above article to "misdeeds", it would be nice if just for once this site considered the possiblity, even for a moment, that the US Government is not necessarily the secretive, miscreant that it seems to have a penchant proclaiming at every opportunity. It is a gross generalization bordering on paranoia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 2nd, 2011 @ 8:52pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's doubtful Manning read each of the thousands of documents and then decided they should all be leaked because of their importance to the security of the nation he swore to defend.
I would guess that he had no idea of the repercussions of the documents he leaked and didn't seem to care if they caused anyone harm. That they haven't yet caused significant harm is a matter open for debate.
This entire episode is reduced to a condition of whether you trust the US government or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We have to consider the positive impact releasing all the documents in the aggregate would likely have when you know they contain some amount of corruption vs the aggregate damage. You can't just see if a single one does damage.
What justification (whether right or wrong) did our very government leaders use for dropping the bomb on Japan in wwii? That despite the costs, there would be net gains at a wide-scale.
I wish we would see jury nullification in action if it were to be warranted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I disagree that we need to consider any positive impact in aggregate with this or any crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let's just look at the FBI for a second shall we?
FBI abuses of power
FBI abuses 3000 laws
FBI raids activists
Scrapyard vs FBI, Round 1
Now for every 3 bad stories, there are two good:
Prevention of a bomb plot?
Investigating human trafficking
Nothing says that the FBI can't exist. The problem comes up when they decide that they are a law unto themselves and forget that hey, they have to follow due process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your own government want to harms you and you will do nothing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I believe the whole point of whistleblowing is that whistle-blower believes something wrong, immoral or illegal is being done, and the exposure of this activity to public scrutiny is needed to allow the maleficence to be corrected.
Manning has been described as a whistleblower. If Manning indeed believes he is a whistleblower, wouldn't that imply that his intent was to correct a wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
B) Intent is not required for all crimes, though it often mitigates. Think of "manslaughter". You can do wrong, without intending to do wrong, and be punished for it, sometimes severely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Leaking that the US military is doing things the public would not like is hurting the military but helping the public.
The power of the military derives from the people. The greatest law isn't "don't leak classified information". And don't leak classified information is also subservient to "upholding the Constitution".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We cannot just decide classified info can be disbursed. He had no idea what was in all that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And here I was thinking each and every person who's involved with military hardware in foreign lands without a Declaration of War from Congress are in violation of their oath to support the Constitution.
But hey, to each Anonymous Coward according to their position eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AC#24
"I drink the Kool-Aid."
Dude!
There are rules for how material should be classified, as well. None of what Manning released seems to have resulted in immediate damage to the nation, grave or otherwise. Citations to the contrary are welcomed. Our national security does not seem to have been affected in any way by his disclosures; Homeland Security still pretends they're not in the entertainment business, the FBI is still creating "terrorists" to foil the FBI's own anti-American plots.
A traitor acts against his country's (and his comrades') best interests. There is still no evidence Manning has done so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Bradley Manning had to make the same decision and decided differently from you. What he released seems to have done little or no damage. Since the government routinely classifies things of little importance his decision seems to be correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To a rational person then, the conclusion is that the govt is at times the secretive miscreant that you describe. That it also often does many good things does not excuse the bad.
We know that the US govt has engaged in kidnapping and torture of innocent people, that has been confirmed. George Bush recently had to cancel a visit to Switzerland because of the threat of arrest for crimes against humanity (think about that for minute). With these things in mind, how is a mistrust of a govt capable of such actions to be considered paranoia? I think it is irrational to not be mistrustful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Our own government's response to all of this very highly suggests that they are indeed a secretive miscreant.
Just sayin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One can hope
Although I suspect a closed door kangaroo court is more likely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One can hope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One can hope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One can hope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One can hope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: One can hope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#24
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bradley Manning was Very Naive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bradley Manning was Very Naive
I can only hope my son grows up to be that foolish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bradley Manning was Very Naive
I can only hope my son grows up to be that foolish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exposing misdeeds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Exposing misdeeds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Exposing misdeeds
Ex. Afghan boy pimp party - yeah that's reasonable...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Many of you people don't seem to get this. Privates don't get to decide what should and shouldn't be public information. The chain of command is a tight and unyielding thing for very good reasons.
Revealing information, even really seemingly negligible information about your side's movements, techniques, and actions, can easily cause friendly deaths, because information is precious to the enemy. Remember when people got really upset at an embedded reporter (wolf blitzes?) revealing his platoons position in Iraq? There are reasons for that, and that was just a goof.
The enemy is trying to kill you, and that changes everything about your traditional civilian notion of "it didn't do that much harm".
If the enemy failed to kill anyone using this information, that was no fault of Bradley Manning's. I don't know that a death sentence is needed, in this case, pvt Manning seems more stupid and young than malicious, but it's wholly appropriate.
Men have been hanged in wartime for so, so, much less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I thought I taught you better Son. You should stop hanging around those thugs at the PsyOP group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We aren't at war. War was never declared, so we have no 'wartime' situation going on.
The documents in question have revealed nothing that our supposed enemies didn't already know.
The ONLY people these documents have shown to harm are the people in them who did wrong. Not just unlawful, but immoral and/or unjust actions.
You don't seem to understand that he was not acting as a Private, and I've met many a private who had more intelligence and balls than upper echelon commanders, but as a citizen of the United States. There comes a time, even if you don't agree with it, that a person MUST stand for what they believe in.
You want everyone to be little cogs that do what they're trained to do, and nothing more. That's what the government wants. This is not in the best interests of the people or the country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
*We are at war. Officially, actually, in all sorts of ways, including how the GI bill counts time served and so forth. (I should know) Point is, Declarations of War are essentially obsolete, they're not used anymore, don't expect they will be. You can have all sorts opinions on that fact, I do, but it is a fact, and thus the lack of a "declaration" is not material to this conversation.
*#2 is provably false.
*I also disagree with this, though it's less definite, but it's also not the point. Point is, Manning gave the enemy ammo. Even if the enemy missed and failed to kill anyone with it, that doesn't mean giving the enemy ammo isn't enough to damn you. It's "aiding and abetting the enemy" not "successfully assisting the enemy to a win".
*Military personal LITERALLY do not have the same rights that a private citizen does. They are subject to the UCMJ, civilians are not, and penalties according to UCMJ certainly include death. Penalties for treason also include death under civilian law, but the standards are different. Did you know that PUNCHING a superior officer can literally get you a death sentence in time of war? It almost never does, unless someone assaulted their superior on the battlefield, but the rules are there, and they have been used.
* Yes, yes, I do, in the military at least. It simply wouldn't work otherwise. The rules are different, NEED to be different, when there is an organized group trying to kill you. Laxity, freedom to act other than at organized direction, disobedience on even small things, can lead to comrades dying. There's a reason boot camp breaks you down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The army covered it up. He exposed it. Exposing wrongs seems to come with the idea that whistle blowers in the military are truly subjugated and tossed aside. Especially when they're told to "shut up" and "lay low"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've got some reading for you:
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392
If you don't stand up for what's right right now, you won't get the chance to in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But how is that Hypocritical?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is only true if you haven't personally deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. I assure you, it was freaking war.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Revealing information, even really seemingly negligible information about your side's movements, techniques, and actions, can easily cause friendly deaths, because information is precious to the enemy. Remember when people got really upset at an embedded reporter (wolf blitzes?) revealing his platoons position in Iraq? There are reasons for that, and that was just a goof."
Have you read the reports of what he released? What he released was DIPLOMATIC cables. Diplomatic cables deal with political relations with other countries, not troop movements, techniques or actions. This could potentially put sympathetic foreign government officials at risk, not US personnel, military or otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're misinformed, sir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't believe you understand the literal, traditional meaning of the term. If a general turns against a king for the good of their country then they are a traitor to that king, but are not a traitor to that country. In this case, he was certainly a traitor to his superiors and apparently to his government, but that alone does not make him a traitor to his country. His intentions were clearly in the interest of his country and no harm has apparently happened to his country. Are the laws there to protect the government from treason, or the country from treason? I thought it was the latter.
"Privates don't get to decide what should and shouldn't be public information. The chain of command is a tight and unyielding thing for very good reasons. "
If that were true then military personnel would be required to be complicit in the most heinous crimes. Are you supporting the idea that the armies of eastern countries undergoing revolution should aid their governments in killing civilians, for example?
'The enemy is trying to kill you, and that changes everything about your traditional civilian notion of "it didn't do that much harm". '
We're not talking about "traditional civilian notions", we're talking bout facts. Something lacking in backing up the issue of harm.
"I don't know that a death sentence is needed, in this case, pvt Manning seems more stupid and young than malicious, but it's wholly appropriate. "
Perhaps you can explain how it's wholly appropriate to kill someone when you don't believe it's needed.
"Men have been hanged in wartime for so, so, much less."
Your point is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
All you're really pointing out here is that might makes right, winners write the history books, etc. People who over through their government are "rebels", those who fail are "traitors" all that. I really hope this is not news to anybody.
"If that were true then military personnel would be required to be complicit in the most heinous crimes."
You're confusing this with the right to disobey an unlawful order. I respect this principal, though I'll tell you it doesn't usually work in practice. Regardless, it doesn't translate to a right to undermine your side if you feel there are wrongs being committed (and there are ALWAYS wrongs being committed). That's still treason.
The enemy is trying to kill you, facts, etc.
Who's not talking about facts? If we're in a battle, you're on my side, you start tossing the enemy magazines, I'm gonna kill you. I don't need to get shot by those bullets first.
"Perhaps you can explain how it's wholly appropriate to kill someone when you don't believe it's needed"
Now you are just trying to misrepresent what I said. Death is an appropriate penalty for his crimes, it would not be unreasonable. Due to some mitigating factors (mostly youth, naivete, and ignornance) I would probably rather that not be the result. His case is sad. He still should of known better, and yes, he needs to be "made an example of" for all the same reasons movie villains make examples of people (so that no one else is stupid enough to do the same thing) but his case is still sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wow, you are not a nice human being. I really hope you don't pass this sickening attitude on to any offspring. The world desperately needs less people with such a bloodthirsty nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I remember reading a story about an Australian F-18 pilots under direction from US HQ who refused to attack a designated targets in IRAQ plenty of times because they weren't convinced that the targets were military. see link: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/13/1078594618101.html
Compare that behaviour to collateral murder and you see the point that blind obedience is not a good thing.
Manning apparently tried to point out that he was being given unlawful orders by his superiors and he was put down and regarded insubordinate. Mass releasing documents was supposedly not his first course of action, rather it may have been a last resort.
To equate good/bad purely with the law is too simplistic. Sure legally he could be found to be a traitor, but this would be a case were the law conflicts with a more sophisticated ethical understanding in which he is not a traitor, rather an agent attempting to right a greater injustice than the injustice of releasing information classified secret (by an authority acting unlawfully itself) to the public. This would be the principle of greater harm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, I suggested nowhere that the general won. That is your strawman. I am worried that you appear not to recognise the distinction between government and country.
"You're confusing this with the right to disobey an unlawful order."
Which you hadn't even mentioned as an exception to your supposed rule.
"Who's not talking about facts? If we're in a battle, you're on my side, you start tossing the enemy magazines, I'm gonna kill you. I don't need to get shot by those bullets first."
The facts backing up the claims of harm.
"Now you are just trying to misrepresent what I said."
That's rich coming from you considering the obvious strawman you started out with. How did I misrepresent you? You haven't said anything contrary to what I was suggesting, if anything you seem to have explicitly confirmed that you believe it's wholly appropriate for Manning to get the death penalty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Second of all, you all can get upset about the whole declaration of war thing, I don't even disagree. But it's pretty tangential to the "is he traitor" thing. It's also a larger subject than any of the recent wars......I don't believe we've been actually declared war on anyone since Korea, so you're fighting some 60 years of history at this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how about
the basic sentence for each violation is one day in prison...however since even a basic PC is made up of several billion trillion atoms...........ALso this would cover fraud by paper, organic means (storing movies in your brain) and also allowing your tv to shine out of the window, where the individual photons once they escape the planet, may excite distant atoms, thus spreading piracy across the galaxy.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the funniest thing is:
the only difference here is the PUBLIC (boo hiss!) got to see them as well as pretty much every single government on the planet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm
(even though far more kinetic energy is transferred into the PCs case if he shoved the key in hard!)...
I say we execute him and then burn his corpse publicly, then use a steam turbine generator to get back that amount of electric energy.....and return it to the PC!
Also he may have used some oxygen near the PC for various biological processes WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wanna know a secret????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wanna know a secret????
Ghandi..Martin Luther King etc...they didn't really win because of what they said or did..they won because they exposed the enemy to utter ridicule...they proved how stupid what the other guy was saying:
Ghandi proved that the British "civilizing" India by murdering as many women and children as possible and raping the rest was worse than what went before..and proved how barbaric and stupid the British were being.....
Martin Luther King proved that the idea that one persons outer surface contains chemicals that absorb slightly more photons than another persons means one person is "better" than the other was one of the most stupid ideas in history, and that anyone that believed it was obviously a moron....
The battle with the RIAA, MPAA etc won't be won on arguments...it will be won on the simple fact that the stuff they do tends to prove they have a lower than usual intelligence level when it comes to economics. In a few short years, the current lawsuits by RIAA/MPAA etc will be as obviously silly as their "don't copy that floppy" video........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bradley...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bradley...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand, we don't need a new name for the response of the US Government. Stupid, heavy-handed and oppressive fits the bill quite nicely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: name for it other whistleblower..
Whistlefrag?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: name for it other whistleblower..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right or wrong has no place in the argument.
Patriots have always been punished for doing what they thought was right because in order to do the right thing they needed to break the laws of the time.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. ~ Thomas Jefferson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yah boo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No damage?
I hadn't seen that before. Can you provide some quotes of the government officials?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope he gets the max
BTW: it's funny that "know" the motivation of the government's action, but don't seem to know or care what Pvt Manning's motivation was, which seems to be nothing more than to be a "hacker" and anti-establishment. Yea, good reasons to love an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I hope he gets the max
It wasn't anyone's right to torture people or send them away for other countries to torture. Can I suppose that you support prosecuting those responsible for torture to the fullest?
"don't seem to know or care what Pvt Manning's motivation was"
Why do you get the impression that people don't seem to care about that? We've been discussing it here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]