Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 16:34:42 GMT -5
...And insults veterans everywhere. God DAMNIT this pisses me off.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jan 17, 2017 17:07:28 GMT -5
Most of the information Manning released, they should have been protected under whistle-blower laws.
Anyways, I thought you would love this Cyber, it strengthens the idea that Russia isn't behind the DNC leaks. Obama commutes their sentence down to 4 more months instead of pardoning them. If he pardoned them instead, Assange would have came to the US and no longer protested extradition. Then they could have grilled him to prove it was Russia. But Obama knows it isn't Russia so doesn't want Assange here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 17:20:41 GMT -5
Most of the information Manning released, they should have been protected under whistle-blower laws. Anyways, I thought you would love this Cyber, it strengthens the idea that Russia isn't behind the DNC leaks. Obama commutes their sentence down to 4 more months instead of pardoning them. If he pardoned them instead, Assange would have came to the US and no longer protested extradition. Then they could have grilled him to prove it was Russia. But Obama knows it isn't Russia so doesn't want Assange here. He was convicted under military laws, you moron. Those laws are completely separate legal entities. Stop parading your pathetic ignorance.
I'd like to hear from some informed individuals, not silly-ass trolls looking for attention.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jan 17, 2017 17:23:57 GMT -5
Most of the information Manning released, they should have been protected under whistle-blower laws. Anyways, I thought you would love this Cyber, it strengthens the idea that Russia isn't behind the DNC leaks. Obama commutes their sentence down to 4 more months instead of pardoning them. If he pardoned them instead, Assange would have came to the US and no longer protested extradition. Then they could have grilled him to prove it was Russia. But Obama knows it isn't Russia so doesn't want Assange here. He was convicted under military laws, you moron. Those laws are completely separate legal entities. Stop parading your pathetic ignorance.
I'd like to hear from some informed individuals, not silly-ass trolls looking for attention.
I know that, I said should have, as in whistle-blower laws should apply to those under the UCMJ too. And he can pardon military crimes. And as I said, the whole point (WHICH YOU IGNORED) is that he gave up an opportunity to prove it was Russia that leaked the DNC information.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 17:37:46 GMT -5
I never got much into this story...what did he/she leak?
If it showed any fraud or wrong doings at all, I'm all for it. If it was just some aCT of rebellion for no reason, fuck that.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jan 17, 2017 17:51:11 GMT -5
I never got much into this story...what did he/she leak? If it showed any fraud or wrong doings at all, I'm all for it. If it was just some aCT of rebellion for no reason, fuck that. Real collateral damage numbers, orders to ignore torture, child abuse coverups, a wide range of things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 17:51:42 GMT -5
Sounds like a fuckING hero to me. Doesn't look like one but...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 17:59:10 GMT -5
He did it because he was a fag that was mad at the world and endangered people's lives. Jackel is also a fag that is mad at the world and endangers Sporty's mental health.
|
|
|
Post by Premier on Jan 17, 2017 18:15:38 GMT -5
Obama is just trolling now.
Is Snowden next?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 18:21:04 GMT -5
Obama is just trolling now. Is Snowden next? Nope. Manning did his thing when Bush was in office. Obama won't let Snowden off the hook. But I am surprised no one has mentioned that Assange said he would turn himself over to be extradited to the U.S. if Obama freed Manning. Well. Manning just got his sentence commuted...
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jan 17, 2017 18:33:52 GMT -5
Obama is just trolling now. Is Snowden next? Nope. Manning did his thing when Bush was in office. Obama won't let Snowden off the hook. But I am surprised no one has mentioned that Assange said he would turn himself over to be extradited to the U.S. if Obama freed Manning. Well. Manning just got his sentence commuted... Look at the first response in this thread... Jan 17, 2017 16:07:28 GMT -6 Angelo said:
Anyways, I thought you would love this Cyber, it strengthens the idea that Russia isn't behind the DNC leaks. Obama commutes their sentence down to 4 more months instead of pardoning them. If he pardoned them instead, Assange would have came to the US and no longer protested extradition. Then they could have grilled him to prove it was Russia. But Obama knows it isn't Russia so doesn't want Assange here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 19:30:02 GMT -5
I'm amazed that folks are not well-informed about this. This guy/girl is a MILITARY TRAITOR who plea-bargained down to avoid a possible death sentence. A closeted homosexual who "came out" when things got hairy in his military assignment; his commander was trying to get him removed as an obvious security risk just prior to his heinous act. He was a suicidal, hot psychological mess who never should have been given a security clearance, much less access to highly sensitive data.
A hero? Nuh-Uh. Not when you have TAKEN AN OATH TO DEFEND THE USA FROM ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, ETC. as all military personel do. This guy enlisted and then betrayed his oath. This is undisputed, Manning admitted it.
It is acknowledged that the Taliban went on a killing spree after this unredacted info was leaked for the enemy to see; informants sympathetic to our military mission were sought out for execution. So were ANYONE even under suspicion, but not specifically identified in the leaked documents, as many sympathizers were. People who were helping us -- and therefore protecting our own military personel -- DIED behind this shit, and not all were even guilty of collaborating with us. This does not even BEGIN to describe the scope of complications to our military mission resulting from what Manning did.
Regardless of whether one agrees or not with our military involvement over there, a simple fact exists: this member of our military BETRAYED this nation, and got innocent people killed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 19:33:12 GMT -5
Damn, I should take Jackel off ignore.
Just kidding. I don't have anyone on ignore.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jan 17, 2017 20:30:16 GMT -5
Regardless of whether one agrees or not with our military involvement over there,
a simple fact exists: this member of our military BETRAYED this nation, and got innocent people killed.
Actually the Pentagon's official testimony in court said that nobody has been killed as a result of the information Manning leaked. So Manning didn't actually harm anyone, they just exposed child abuse, falsified casualty reports, friendly fire incidents, lies about torture, government manipulations, etc... So Manning should be put to death but not the people covering up the pedophilia? The people killing innocents? etc...?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 21:44:01 GMT -5
Regardless of whether one agrees or not with our military involvement over there,
a simple fact exists: this member of our military BETRAYED this nation, and got innocent people killed.
Actually the Pentagon's official testimony in court said that nobody has been killed as a result of the information Manning leaked. So Manning didn't actually harm anyone, they just exposed child abuse, falsified casualty reports, friendly fire incidents, lies about torture, government manipulations, etc... So Manning should be put to death but not the people covering up the pedophilia? The people killing innocents? etc...? First of all Jackel, I never said or even implied that Obama couldn't pardon military crimes. Of course he can. My point was that the whistleblower statutes you're referring to wouldn't protect anyone from charges of treason or espionage.
I don't know where you're getting your information; it conflicts with what is being reported this evening. Needless to say, the Pentagon would not necessarily have accurate information, names of victims, etc. ...and it CERTAINLY wouldn't be publicly reporting in our news media that, say, "American-allied sympathizers Abu Al-Aziz and Muhammad el-Zein were found murdered today, two days after the top-secret intel was illegally revealed to the enemy." Such reports would be classified for reasons obvious to ANYONE.... probably even someone as clueless as yourself.
Or, are you claiming to have access to such classified information that the general public does not? It wouldn't surprise me, or anyone else on this forum. You've made less-credible claims before.
Are you suggesting that the Pentagon brought an espionage case against a soldier that was innocent?....and convicted him of lesser but related charges for some unfathomable reason?
The Taliban itself announced its intent to kill the collaborators and it's being reported, right now, that they carried out their threat, with a scorched-earth campaign of murder against anyone even suspected of aiding our cause.
OF COURSE, IT'S ALSO QUITE IRRELEVANT WHETHER OR NOT ANYONE WAS ACTUALLY KILLED; the risks to our soldiers and their sympathizers is reason enough for the conviction that was actually attained in his court-martial proceedings.
But go ahead and POST THE LINKS TO THE ACTUAL PENTAGON TESTIMONY YOU REFER TO. I'm betting you're talking through your ass again.
...And don't forget to include the child-abuse/pedophilia "proof" you're alleging to have been revealed -- and the names of those evil perpetrators of murder against the "innocents" you describe.
Oh, let's see the "falsified casualty reports" info you're alleging too. As for friendly-fire incidents, those are routinely acknowledged after an investigation. Unfortunate, almost completely-unavoidable tragedies of war....NOT evidence of wrongdoing.
I'll wait for the other stuff you're trolling about...
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jan 17, 2017 22:28:59 GMT -5
Actually the Pentagon's official testimony in court said that nobody has been killed as a result of the information Manning leaked. So Manning didn't actually harm anyone, they just exposed child abuse, falsified casualty reports, friendly fire incidents, lies about torture, government manipulations, etc... So Manning should be put to death but not the people covering up the pedophilia? The people killing innocents? etc...? I don't know where you're getting your information; it conflicts with what is being reported this evening. Needless to say, the Pentagon would not necessarily have accurate information, names of victims, etc. ...and it CERTAINLY wouldn't be publicly reporting in our news media that, say, "American-allied sympathizers Abu Al-Aziz and Muhammad el-Zein were found murdered today, two days after the top-secret intel was illegally revealed to the enemy." Such reports would be classified for reasons obvious to ANYONE.... probably even someone as clueless as yourself.
Or, are you claiming to have access to such classified information that the general public does not? It wouldn't surprise me, or anyone else on this forum. You've made less-credible claims before.
Are you suggesting that the Pentagon brought an espionage case against a soldier that was innocent?....and convicted him of lesser but related charges for some unfathomable reason?
The Taliban itself announced its intent to kill the collaborators and it's being reported, right now, that they carried out their threat, with a scorched-earth campaign of murder against anyone even suspected of aiding our cause.
OF COURSE, IT'S ALSO QUITE IRRELEVANT WHETHER OR NOT ANYONE WAS ACTUALLY KILLED; the risks to our soldiers and their sympathizers is reason enough for the conviction that was actually attained in his court-martial proceedings.
But go ahead and POST THE LINKS TO THE ACTUAL PENTAGON TESTIMONY YOU REFER TO. I'm betting you're talking through your ass again.
...And don't forget to include the child-abuse/pedophilia "proof" you're alleging to have been revealed -- and the names of those evil perpetrators of murder against the "innocents" you describe.
Oh, let's see the "falsified casualty reports" info you're alleging too. As for friendly-fire incidents, those are routinely acknowledged after an investigation. Unfortunate, almost completely-unavoidable tragedies of war....NOT evidence of wrongdoing.
I'll wait for the other stuff you're trolling about...
Since I think your crack binge may keep you from being able to do a simple search since obviously your memory is failing you.... www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/bradley-manning-sentencing-hearing-pentagonwww.techdirt.com/articles/20130731/15572324025/us-military-admits-no-one-died-because-mannings-leaks.shtmlwww.courthousenews.com/2013/07/31/59869.htmwww.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/us-cant-connect-single-death-bradley-mannings-leaks/312643/fair.org/uncategorized/the-government-cant-prove-bradley-manning-hurt-anyone-but-joe-klein-knows/popularresistance.org/government-unable-to-show/If you want more, just google/bing/whatever Manning, Robert Carr, Information Review Task Force. They testified in court that Manning didn't result in any innocents being killed or put at risk. As for them bringing a case, it is regular practice to go after something with higher punishment to scare people into pleading to something lesser even if there are no grounds. For casualty reports, just look up the Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs that Manning leaked which were kept by the US government when they said they didn't keep a running tally and showed an almost 2:1 ratio of innocent:combatant. A quick link to see there is something... www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/22/true-civilian-body-count-iraqThe friendly fire was what exploded this whole thing, the Apache helicopter footage. www.france24.com/en/20100406-leaked-video-shows-us-military-killing-civilians-reuters-staffFor the child abuse coverup, here a quick link, you can easily find more www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/02/foreign-contractors-hired-dancing-boysHow about Clinton's giving the order to collect DNA and other biometrics on UN personnel including the Secretary General www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333920/WikiLeaks-Hillary-Clinton-ordered-U-S-diplomats-spy-UN-leaders.html
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jan 17, 2017 23:01:30 GMT -5
I'll sum up my thoughts on this. Manning should not have gone about things the way they did. Much of what they leaked, should have been leaked because our Military and politicians should be held accountable by their actions rather than having a built in way to cover them up. America needs to hold the higher moral ground to keep from fracturing.
If the government wants Manning in prison, half or more of Congress, Hillary, much of the top brass in the military, etc... should be in prison first. None of this double standard shit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 23:15:43 GMT -5
A list of over 900 dead Afghan citizens (only some were likely collaborators) was referred to. The absence of specifically named individuals on that list of Afghans identified as reprisal-victims killed doesn't prove that none died due to such reprisals by the Taliban; ONLY THAT THE MILITARY WOULD NOT PUBLICLY IDENTIFY THEM. Indeed, the names of any assassinated Afghan collaborators -- assuming they could be accurately identified as such -- might be routinely struck (or omitted) from such a list, for reasons I alluded to earlier. Publication (or even just a compilation) of such a list might have endangered other sympathizers. In our prisons, wardens do not keep lists of informants in folders within their desks, for (once again) obvious reasons. Our military leaders follow similar protective measures for agents acting on our behalf.
Identification of even one assassinated Afghani sympathizer to our cause WASN'T NECCESARY to convict Manning. Why would the military identify anyone and possibly endanger other still-living associates, or their families?
The name of ONE alleged victim was struck from the list, probably to the relief of the Pentagon, since it may have created complications for allies. But that does NOT "prove" that no fatalities resulted from Manning's treachery; it only suggests that such verification lies behind a wall of secrecy that exists for a very good reason.
It defies common sense to even suggest there were no resultant assassinations. But you're lacking that commodity anyway.
The all-too-common and well-known abuse of young boys by Afghan tribal leaders is somehow relevant to this discussion? How? Such abuses were known long before this case existed; their inclusion in any info that Manning revealed is largely incidental. Contractors paid by the USA were involved; their actions were never authorized by our government. Does misuse/abuse of our expenditures equate to guilt on our part? I think not.
The casualty reports? YOU'RE AMAZED THAT THE MILITARY CONCEALS OR FALSIFIES THESE? You're one naïve SOB. You shoulda been watching TV back in the 1960s when the Vietnam casualty figures were being routinely announced on the nightly news. I was in my mid-teens and I laughed at them then. It's no different today...just irrelevant as to whether or not Manning is guilty.
So, the military scared Manning into pleading to lesser charges "even though there were no grounds?" You're full of crap. The military justice system has what is known as an Article 32 hearing. It's the equivalent to a Preliminary Examination in the civilian system. It's where charges of military crimes must be substantiated. If no grounds for the less serious charges existed -- as you so irresponsibly claim -- they would have been dismissed. Instead, MANNING ADMITTED TO THEM, as a requirement for his plea to be accepted.
Sober up and shut up, fool.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2017 7:32:14 GMT -5
I hate to mention it, but there's been little news with regard to that other traitor, Bowe Bergdahl. HIS court-martial has been delayed to at least Feb. 6.
Still time for the Socialist-in-Chief to further demoralize and discourage our military personel even more, with another pardon- prior-to any conviction (like Nixon). I really hope that doesn't happen, but I wouldn't bet a nickel against it.
|
|