Bradley Manning

• Footwedge

  Glenn Greenwald shares his opinions on this man.
  
  "Compare this aggressive prosecution of Manning to the Obama administration's vigorous efforts to shield Bush-era war crimes and massive Wall Street fraud from all forms of legal accountability. Not a single perpetrator of those genuine crimes has faced court under Obama, a comparison that reflects the priorities and values of US justice"
  
  
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/30/bradley-manning-liberty-lost-america
• Con_Alma

  Manning broke the law. He will be fortunate to only get life in solitary.
  
  You want to call for others to stand trial...so be it. Manning is guilty and I have no sympathy for him.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  He released classified information.
  Sorry, he broke the law.
  Yes, there is overclassification, but he broke the law.
  
  
  I think there is too much stuff classified, but he released that information knowing what he did was wrong.
  Lock him up, but not for life.
• believer

  

  Manning broke the law and deserves jail time.
  
  /thread
• BoatShoes

  Malum Prohibitum
• queencitybuckeye

  Yes, passing state secrets is only illegal by statute. How ridiculous are you?
• Con_Alma

  ...and yet still the law.
• justincredible

  

  It's a weird world we live in when exposing war crimes is worse than the actual war crimes themselves. Also, when will he be standing trial? It's been over 1000 days and nothing.
• justincredible

  

  Con_Alma;1396225 wrote:...and yet still the law.

  Everything Hitler did was legal, right?
• Con_Alma

  Trial is expected to be in June.
• Con_Alma

  justincredible;1396230 wrote:Everything Hitler did was legal, right?

  I highly doubt it. Should Hitler have been let go if captured?
• BoatShoes

  queencitybuckeye;1396224 wrote:Yes, passing state secrets is only illegal by statute. How ridiculous are you?

  I think it's fair to say reasonable minds could disagree about whether or not what he did was wrong in and of itself.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Manning should be an example for all Americans, and the only trials we should see are for Bush, Rumsfeld, Obama, Hillary, and company.
• queencitybuckeye

  BoatShoes;1396239 wrote:I think it's fair to say reasonable minds could disagree about whether or not what he did was wrong in and of itself.

  Which is not the same statement as your previous post.
• justincredible

  

  Con_Alma;1396233 wrote:I highly doubt it. Should Hitler have been let go if captured?

  As Chancellor did Hitler not make the laws?
• justincredible

  

  Con_Alma;1396231 wrote:Trial is expected to be in June.

  3 and a half years later. Sounds reasonable.
• Con_Alma

  justincredible;1396245 wrote:As Chancellor did Hitler not make the laws?

  I don't know. Are you suggesting he may have not broken any laws?
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Con_Alma;1396251 wrote:I don't know. Are you suggesting he may have not broken any laws?

  How could he break the laws if he made them?
• Con_Alma

  justincredible;1396247 wrote:3 and a half years later. Sounds reasonable.

  He was arraigned February of 2012.
  
  He was initially held in July of 2012 through April of 2011 under the Prevention of Injury status.
• justincredible

  

  Con_Alma;1396251 wrote:I don't know. Are you suggesting he may have not broken any laws?

  Yes, that is what I am suggesting.
  
  My point being just because something is lawful doesn't mean it's right, and vice versa.
• BoatShoes

  queencitybuckeye;1396242 wrote:Which is not the same statement as your previous post.

  Well, you often complain about how long my posts are and since several other posters simply wrote "He broke the law therefore he deservers jail" I could've gone into a long diatribe about how we might think of other instances when people broke the law and yet we didn't find them to be deserving of jail time or moral condemnation, etc.
  
  Instead, I simply wrote the phrase that illustrates that some actions might be wrong simply because they're prohibited and not because they're wrong in and of themselves. And, as it happens, it seems that's how a lot of Bradley Manning supporters feel about this situation.
  
  But then, you reply to my post and say "how unreasonable are you" an attack on me which is par for the course as it pertains to our conversations on this forum.
• Con_Alma

  justincredible;1396247 wrote:3 and a half years later. Sounds reasonable.

  Reasonable is subjective. Some of the delays are due to defense requests while others are based on the 100s of thousands of cables that will be potentially referred to in the court marital.
• Con_Alma

  justincredible;1396260 wrote:Yes, that is what I am suggesting.
  
  My point being just because something is lawful doesn't mean it's right, and vice versa.

  No one has argues the morailty of law, certainly not I.
• justincredible

  

  Con_Alma;1396266 wrote:No one has argues the morailty of law, certainly not I.

  Con_Alma;1396225 wrote:...and yet still the law.

  Oh.
• Con_Alma

  justincredible;1396280 wrote:Oh.

  Exactly. I pointed out the law being in place as opposed to the right and wrongs being focused on by those opposed to the military court's action.