Bradley Manning Hearing Ends with No Clear Sign of Harm Done to US

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>would you have wanted a japanese leaker to warn us of pearl harbour?

I'll answer your question if you answer mine. I have now asked it three times. Would you have wanted some leaker to tell the world news the details of the invasion we planned on June 6, 1944?

didn't get an answer the last time you used the 'i'll answer your question if you answer mine' so not wandering there again. would you have wanted a janese leaker warning us of pearl harbour? millions of lives could have been saved. no hiroshima...

Oh, Good God!


Chuck

I guess he is ignoring the Japanese Emperor and his quest, prior to Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was an attempt at keeping the US from stepping in to aid the rest of the Pacific against Japan, they did not think we would rebuild fast enough and thought we would be to wounded to want to fight, oops!

Matt

and if pearl harbour had been rumbled they might have had second thoughts about starting a war...

It was a "rumble". Had it been "rubbled", I think the US still goes to war, Japan was trying a preemptive strike, they failed . But you are playing the "If" game and trying to use hind sight with it, they aren't going to change history though.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[billvon 2,400]

>so not wandering there again.

So you won't answer - again.

Once again you end up in a corner and realize that your own philosophy doesn't work when it's applied to yourself. It's a trait common to many ideologues - "everyone but me should be subject to X." The most common expressions are:

"Taxes should be raised on everyone but me."
"Everyone but me should be forced to help the poor."
"The government should prohibit X. . . . "
" . . . for everyone but me."
" . . . and X is something I'd never do anyway." (2 options there.)

[nanook 1]

Quote

Quote

that's a strange request. You want proof of damage to what leaked classified material has caused. No common sense bells ringing here? Why would the Govt tell anyone about classified damage caused by leaked classified material? Why in the world would one think that any of this be unclassified.

umm, I don't know, maybe I'm just a citizen that wants government accountability and transparency and NOT some group of blind-faith, purple-koolaid-drinking drones letting them do whatever they want whenever they want....? Including the military.

duh?

We have that in place. It's just not done by you. This is not your arena. It's obvious. Just because you are a citizen doesn't mean you have the right to knowledge or oversight. Your rhetoric shows more purple koolaid dronism than what you accuse us of. You just don't know it.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

You contradict yourself - if a Japanese leaker would have harmed their war effort, then Manning's leaks have harmed the US, especially in regards to military and diplomatic efforts.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

>so not wandering there again.

So you won't answer - again.

i answered your last 'if you answer i'll answer' - and you never returned an answer to me. so i'm not going to play that game again. meanwhile you've not posted any harm done by manning to the us so your d-day example is just another 'what if' from the last great war. (next you'll mention the hitler and we'll have a clean sweep)...

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

>and if the drunk driver is a medic called out to a desperate emergency a few miles
>down the road - so that hundreds could die if he doesn't get there. what then - a police
>escort?

You answer my question and I'll answer yours.

If a drunk driver is pulled over and has not yet harmed anyone - who has he harmed?

still waiting for your answer to my question...

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[tkhayes 126]

Quote

I doubt that's what you want, but that is what you're saying. So add a little detail in there, TK.

there is no more need for detail - NO SECRETS.

If we were not in Iraq in the first place, there would be no Iraqi war logs to keep secret. There would be no government agencies paid to keep the secrets. There would be no need for the secrets. Or the government agencies paid to keep them. think of the savings. no wars and no secret keepers. wow, we could actually spend the money on roads and education instead. maybe even health care.

i made myself very clear in other threads in other posts as to what I think about government secrecy. It's a bad thing. especially if you believe in government transparency and government accountability.

Now if you believe in moving closer and closer to a police state, as many of you seem to, then it is a great thing.

[tkhayes 126]

Quote

We have that in place.

Yes we do. And when it fails, as it did and has, we have people like Bradley Manning to correct it. And we have people like me that support those types of maneuvers by insiders when they see wrong happening and no one is doing anything about it.

Accountability and transparency is not just a concept - it takes action and human intervention at all levels to make it work.

i.e. I don't see BP employees sitting in solitary confinement for months because they ratted out the insider info on their company, even though it was the largest environmental disaster in the history of the USA and the Gulf.

yeah yeah I know I know, it's DIFFERENT!

Well it's not really. A BP insider is hailed as a hero because they spoke up and exposed the wrong-doing. Manning is prosecuted because he spoke up about the wrong-doing.

clear as day.

[shropshire 0]

One also has to look at the 'I was only following order' crew - Are they guilty of the crimes they commit? - Sure of course they are.

What of the peeps that Fail to carry out illegal orders - are they hero's or villains?

When IS an order deemed to be illegal, and by whom? Can a grunt in the field make that determination? What about an NCO or .... a senior NCO ... a junior Officer.... etc.. A single person, a small group.

Can an order be both legal and illegal .. can be basically legal but have illegal or unethical aspects - who decides?

What are the qualifications?
What are the circumstances?

These are tricky areas and this case wont change that.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Kennedy 0]

I'm going to leave aside that you pretty much just proved Bill's point about you.

Simple question: If a drunk driver is pulled over and has not caused a wreck or run anyone off the road, who has he harmed?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

I'm going to leave aside that you pretty much just proved Bill's point about you.

Simple question: If a drunk driver is pulled over and has not caused a wreck or run anyone off the road, who has he harmed?

and i answered in the next post. still waiting for his answer though...

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[rushmc 18]

Simple question: If a drunk driver is pulled over and has not caused a wreck or run anyone off the road, who has he harmed?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm going to leave aside that you pretty much just proved Bill's point about you.

Simple question: If a drunk driver is pulled over and has not caused a wreck or run anyone off the road, who has he harmed?

and i answered in the next post. still waiting for his answer though...

Except you didn't. Your "answers" were evasions, not responsive answers to the question posed. As usual for you. Whatever, man; you're a known quantity here. Some are willing to play your game; others are not.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm going to leave aside that you pretty much just proved Bill's point about you.

Simple question: If a drunk driver is pulled over and has not caused a wreck or run anyone off the road, who has he harmed?

and i answered in the next post. still waiting for his answer though...

Except you didn't.

except i did...

now it's bills turn

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

now it's bills turn

I doubt it, since Bill is not a child trapped in an adult's body.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

now it's bills turn

I doubt it, since Bill is not a child trapped in an adult's body.

billvon can speak for himself.

now back to topic...

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[normiss 622]

I find it very discomforting that you would support the treasonous actions of some idiot who never had the authority to disseminate classified information at his own will.
You clearly do not understand the importance of classified military information.
Comparing the military to BP is simple foolishness.
No comparison in any regard.

[tkhayes 126]

Quote

I find it very discomforting that you would support the treasonous actions of some idiot who never had the authority to disseminate classified information at his own will.
You clearly do not understand the importance of classified military information.
Comparing the military to BP is simple foolishness.
No comparison in any regard.

It goes far deeper than that Mark, I do not see the need for military classifications OF SPECIFIC KINDS. i.e. full disclosure of EVERYTHING when we invade a country for no reason. (Iraq)

Hide the D-Day mission? Sure. but FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL INFORMATION when a bunch of rogue soldiers kill a bunch of civilians, yes.

How about my argument - STOP fighting the watrs, and we will not need the secrets associated with them. problem solved.

And the 'treason' argument has been attempted again and again. You call my comment foolish? I call your treason comment completley irresponsible and a violation of civil rights. He has not been charged with treason, he has not had his due process, he has not had his day in court, he is innocent until proven guilty.

So I assume then that not are you Ok with the military gunning down civilians and no one exposing that truth, (just because the military decides to 'classify it'), but you are also Ok with the government prosecuting people based on public opinion (treason), even if it violates the Constitution?

Does open government and no secrets cause problems? Maybe, but I bet it solves more problems that it creates. Does secret government cause more problems? Take a look at North Korea.

[tkhayes 126]

+1, it is not an easy issue, never said it was. I vote for transparency. If the Constitution required the government to keep NO SECRETS, I bet our foreign (and domestic for that matter) policy would look a lot different.

hidden agendas require hidden government. I vote for neither.

[normiss 622]

He IS receiving his full legal recourse now.
A member of the military does not have the same rights you do, the constitution does n ot come into play when the UCMJ is applied.
It;s one of th things you forfeit when you join the military.
Along with the ability to make a personal decision on national security.

Legal recourse for cover-ups and civilian murders can and do come out in other ways. Not at the personal discretion of a confused kid.

I'll agree with you the Iraq war (amongst others) was a foolish waste of lives and money...but that is no reason to completely set aside security.

Comparing the US to North Korea ... not even sure how to respond to that one.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Comparing the US to North Korea ... not even sure how to respond to that one.

Good, because that's not what he was doing. He was using N. Korea as a cautionary tale, i.e., an extreme example of the end result of a slippery slope.

[BoogeyMan 0]

Quote

meanwhile no one has posted any evidence that the us was damaged by wikileaks...

Nonsense.
The actual charge sheet was posted in the NY Times. Read the charges.
Manning has admitted that he stole documents, added foreign software to classified programs, dispensed classified intell to unauthorized persons and so on for several pages.
Manning is going to be in the Leavenworth joint for a very, very long time.

[gher 0]

Quote

Quote

meanwhile no one has posted any evidence that the us was damaged by wikileaks...

Nonsense.
The actual charge sheet was posted in the NY Times. Read the charges.
Manning has admitted that he stole documents, added foreign software to classified programs, dispensed classified intell to unauthorized persons and so on for several pages.
Manning is going to be in the Leavenworth joint for a very, very long time.

But he has dreamdancer's support, so he's got that going for him...Which is nice. A nice warm fuzzy feeling to keep him going when he spends time with his Cellie.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Simple question: If a drunk driver is pulled over and has not caused a wreck or run anyone off the road, who has he harmed?

Well?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[BoogeyMan 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

meanwhile no one has posted any evidence that the us was damaged by wikileaks...

Nonsense.
The actual charge sheet was posted in the NY Times. Read the charges.
Manning has admitted that he stole documents, added foreign software to classified programs, dispensed classified intell to unauthorized persons and so on for several pages.
Manning is going to be in the Leavenworth joint for a very, very long time.

But he has dreamdancer's support, so he's got that going for him...Which is nice.

You're right.....!! Lets see how that works out for "Benedict" Manning.