BBC NEWS: Bradly Manning cleared to leave solitary confinement.

[misconfig]

BBC News - Bradley Manning cleared to leave isolation cell

 

[right winger]

This little pile of needs to be shot for treason.

 

[misconfig]

This little pile of needs to be shot for treason.

I wouldn't agree with that..

It's been CONFIRMED he didn't put any American lives in jeopardy.

 

[mrjarrell]

He's innocent until they prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he's not. If they had a preponderance of evidence, he'd already have been tried. Instead they've kept him locked away in conditions that are abominable to any right thinking person. If they've got a case against him then I suggest they get on with it.

 

[orange]

Not sure what to say to this. "About damn time" is just ...kinda inadequate.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

The guy was arrested after he bragged to a hacker friend that he did this crime, after which his friend turned him in.


The UCMJ is a different system than the civilian justice system. It is irrelevant if he put America lives at risk, the fact is he is accused of passing classified information onto parties that were not authorized to have it. He is in the safest place he can expect to be.

 

[PistolBob]

I hope he likes Kansas.

 

[lashicoN]

The ATF is in solitary confinement for allowing guns into Mexico, which resulted in a Border Patrol Agent's death, right?

 

[rambone]

I still want to know how Patsy First Class Bradley Manning had access to tens of thousands of classified documents.

 

[Expat]

Our angry (about the continuation of don't ask don't tell at the time he betrayed his country) soldier released so much classified information that he could not know how harmful it might be to his country. He acted with reckless disregard against the national security of the United States. If found guilty of treason, I agree with right winger.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

I still want to know how Patsy First Class Bradley Manning had access to tens of thousands of classified documents.

It is all on the wiki but he was an intelligence analyst with access to SIPRNet.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bradley_Manning

 

[misconfig]

If you ask me, I think he had a MORAL DUTY to release that information go to wikileaks, download the cables. The American Government is doing some TERRIBLE things in the name of "freedom".

He is a HERO in my book.

P.S This is all "alleged" it doesn't take much for someone to "say" this person did this. It was supposedly brought up in IM messages, no phone calls no real data pointing him to the crime.

It's not that hard to make a patsy, you know.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

If you ask me, I think he had a MORAL DUTY to release that information go to wikileaks, download the cables. The American Government is doing some TERRIBLE things in the name of "freedom".

He is a HERO in my book.

P.S This is all "alleged" it doesn't take much for someone to "say" this person did this. It was supposedly brought up in IM messages, no phone calls no real data pointing him to the crime.

It's not that hard to make a patsy, you know.

Sure, and I'm a Chinese jet pilot.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

If you ask me, I think he had a MORAL DUTY to release that information go to wikileaks, download the cables. The American Government is doing some TERRIBLE things in the name of "freedom".

He is a HERO in my book.

P.S This is all "alleged" it doesn't take much for someone to "say" this person did this. It was supposedly brought up in IM messages, no phone calls no real data pointing him to the crime.

It's not that hard to make a patsy, you know.

You must never have been entrusted with a security clearance. I had the same one (SCI) that Manning had. I had to promise to keep secrets from everyone for the rest of my life to get it. I've done that. He should have too. He's a traitor and a liar. The ends do not justify the means.

 

[misconfig]

You must never have been entrusted with a security clearance. I had the same one (SCI) that Manning had. I had to promise to keep secrets from everyone for the rest of my life to get it. I've done that. He should have too. He's a traitor and a liar. The ends do not justify the means.

I'm not saying if I had that security clearance I would do this, I wouldn't want to be imprisoned therefore I'd keep my mouth shut.

THOUGH, it brought a lot of light on the war.

 

[88GT]

You must never have been entrusted with a security clearance. I had the same one (SCI) that Manning had. I had to promise to keep secrets from everyone for the rest of my life to get it. I've done that. He should have too. He's a traitor and a liar. The ends do not justify the means.

I don't know what my husband's clearance is, but occasionally I'll get an "I can't answer that" in response to one of my questions. And it's hardly on the same level as the info that was leaked. Mostly tech stuff for design details and whatnot. Certainly not names and locations and battle plans. But he's still honoring his promise not to reveal it.

I'm not saying if I had that security clearance I would do this, I wouldn't want to be imprisoned therefore I'd keep my mouth shut.

THOUGH, it brought a lot of light on the war.

What about his moral duty to uphold the implicit promise not to reveal the information? Is there such a thing as degrees of moral duty?

 

[96firephoenix]

whether or not what he did was MORALLY right or wrong, his actions did warrant at the very least a dishonorable discharge if not imprisonment for treason. he let his personal views get in the way of his duty.

 

[Bapak2ja]

Grandpappy told my pappy, "Back in my day, son,
A man had to answer for the wicked things he done.
Take all the rope in Texas, find a tall oak tree.
Round up all of them bad boys, hang'em high in the street."

The words may not be exactly correct, but that's as close as I can get to accurate and it is accurate enough to make my point.

Even though the words came from a drunk high on grass most of the day, he had some wisdom in that fried brain. Evil that puts the lives of many others at risk cannot be given a pass. However, there is the line of argument that asserts obedience to an unlawful order is itself a violation of the military code, as demonstrated at Nuremberg and in the My Lai tribunal (For those too young to remember, see My Lai Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

What we have here is a clash of values. What is the higher value in American culture? Obedience to the chain of command or the moral imperative? The chain of command certainly has a higher priority in many cases. However, at certain times the chain of command (orders) must be ignored. When is it justified to ignore orders? Generally, when:

1. The order is against the law of the land or the rules of engagement.
2. The order is morally reprehensible.

The critical issue is who decides if an order fulfills the requirements of #1 or #2? Of course, the military court will decide in favor of obeying the order, as a general rule. It has a vested interest in maintaining the power of the chain of command. Though exceptions are made occasionally, the overwhelming prejudice of the military court is to support the chain of command. In a civilian court, the prejudice is against the chain of command—especially in the USA today. Military is seen as evil and dangerous by the established judicial system (I know, a broad generalization, but I think it is reasonably accurate today). This court will support the "morally reprehensible" aspect of this case.

We can argue this issue ad infinitum here, but we will not be able to come to an agreed resolution because the values are based on cultural beliefs deeply embedded in opposing, or incompatible, world views. The issue can only be decided by looking to the deepest level of the world view, the level of ultimate allegiance.

If one gives ultimate allegiance to the USA and its constitutional form of government, one likely will support the chain of command/order side of things and see this man as a treasonous scoundrel deserving of a place on that Texas oak tree. If one does not put the USA and its Constitution at the level of ultimate allegiance, one will see this man as deserving a medal of freedom for standing against jack-booted Big Brother and defending freedom.

Of course, there are other things to which ultimate allegiance can be given, but these two examples are sufficient to demonstrate that the disagreement is based on opposing views at the deepest level of our culture. The arguments advanced really are based on different presuppositions growing out of different ultimate allegiances.

In the absence of an agreed upon moral imperative, a standard of righteousness or right/wrong, that does not change with the opinion of the majority, a culture is unable to distinguish right from wrong. Right or wrong is simply the opinion of moment. The one in charge gets to make the decision by virtue of possessed power. Whether that power comes from the barrel of a M-16, an AK-47 or from a black robe clad arrogant effeminate and a high bench is the only determining factor.

In this case, if the POS is adjudicated by the military court, he is indeed a POS. Welcome to the rest of your life in Leavenworth. On the other hand, if this brave defender of freedom and homosexuality is adjudicated by the civilian courts, he is a national hero. Welcome to the lecture circuit.

Thank you, Joseph Fletcher, for advancing the destruction of morality, civility, truth and justice—as well as the USA. Three for anyone who recognizes my own personal opinion in this case.

Now, where did I leave that rope?

 

[MrSmitty]

He should be made to go on a date with Julian Assange, and Julian provides the roofies

 

[misconfig]

He should be made to go on a date with Julian Assange, and Julian provides the roofies

That's alleged... More like a setup if you ask me..