This is a disgrace. They send a young man to prison for 35 years for uncovering possible war crimes and a bunch of diplomatic fiddle-faddle.
He is not eligible for parole until he has served 1/3 of the time.
He is not eligible for parole until he has served 1/3 of the time.
Oh really?
http://www.wavy.com/news/military/evidence-of-damage-from-ma...
"The 250,000 diplomatic cables that Pfc. Bradley Manning disclosed through WikiLeaks endangered the lives of foreign citizens and made some international human-rights workers reluctant to seek U.S. help, a State Department official testified Friday."
"Kozak said some of the cables that Manning downloaded from a classified government computer network identified people as sources of information that would put them at risk of death, violence or incarceration if their involvement were publicly known"
"Kozak said the greatest damage to State Department human-rights efforts was a "chilling effect" on foreign activists seeking U.S. help."
"They can't be sure now whether what they say to us is going to remain confidential or whether it's going to be broadcast around," Kozak said."
He basically outed a bunch of foreign activists that were helping us and put them in danger. Not exactly what I would refer to as "fiddle-faddle"
It is my personal opinion (and the intent of the FOIA and laws regarding classification) that everything should be released unless it is damaging, which almost nothing Manning released could have been. The fact that the US government hasn't been able to point to a single death resulting from Manning's leaks implies to me that everything he released should have been public to begin with.
You say that "95% of the stuff he released was not needed". I would argue that 95% of it needed to be released.
>>The fact that the US government hasn't been able to point to a single death resulting from Manning's leaks implies to me that everything he released should have been public to begin with.
Again how do you know that? Just because they haven't doesn't mean they can't. To point to deaths mean they but the others in the chain of intelligence at risk.
okay, but how would YOU possibly know otherwise?? Just because state official told you?? like those don't lie??
Just pay attention exactly to their words: they can say anything they want to, unless they "show me the money", give me a proof, they can keep blabbing regardless if they are state employee or president of the Milky Way himself!
Don't you remember when Assange was pissed off at a journalist at The Guardian for leaking the password to the cables in his book and thereby revealing the actual names? Assange tried to turn it into a blame game instead of admitting that they hadn't properly redacted the documents.
The "State Department human-rights effort" is not exactly world-renown for its ethics. Quite the opposite.
I guess helping people in oppressive regimes doesn't count to you then?? I guess this $28 million was wasted then huh?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-20/u-s-funds-help-demo...
"The U.S. State Department is set to announce $28 million in grants to help Internet activists, particularly in countries where the governments restrict e-mail and social networks such as those offered by Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc. and Google Inc. (GOOG)"
"The program, which has drawn Republican criticism and budget cuts, has produced software that is spreading widely in Iran and Syria, helping pro-democracy activists avoid detection, said Dan Baer, deputy assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor."
A citizen of a country with a repressive regime was revealed by release of the diplomatic cables to have provided information to the US State Department on the persecution of church members in their country. They have subsequently had to flee the country, being separated for years from their spouse and children who have remained trapped at home.
Do you really find it more credible that I am lying than that the massive release of diplomatic cables has had at least one severely negative and unintended consequence?
To provide a bit more context - it is common for any Christian in some countries to be accused of being a US collaborator. Once your name appears in US diplomatic cable, regardless of the reason, it is very bad news.
Are any of those things necessarily problematic if the United States decides it is in its interest to engage in them? Be aware that what you think of when you say "meddling in domestic politics" may be interpreted differently by others.
The State Department itself has said that the cables were "not damaging."
"...State Department officials concluded late last year that the publication of leaked United States diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks 'was embarrassing but not damaging.'
Robert Gates, Defense Secretary at the time: "Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest."
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/u-s-officials-re...
Swift action on the part of the military and State Dept. after the leaks is what helped make it possible for there to be, in the end, little consequence to foreign policy and little to no fatalities for the people they knew about.
That does not mean, however, that there was no existential threat between the time the leaks were published and the time when that action was finally complete.
The fact that the State Dept. might have been able to salvage the situation doesn't mean there was never a problem in the first place.
Considering the things our government does, it is pleasing to discover that people helping the government are being intimidated.
"Manning is a national hero, who has shown us that we no longer can accept the illusion of rule of law."
Just imagine the crimes the government will be doing by then given what they are getting away with now. With what it will have to cover up they will need examples of people in prison forever to stop people from even thinking of talking about it.
I contemplate killing myself every time I imagine this possibility.
(A view from the outside, but not far outside.)
And if he did it would only be self-serving.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_Bill...
Clinton pardoned 150 people and commuted 39 people and their sentences during his four years. Most of these were done on his last day in office and caused some controversy. Of course his number of pardons paled in comparison to Carter and Reagan who both pardoned over 400 a piece.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_Geor...
By comparison, George H. W. Bush only pardoned 75 people and commuted three sentences.
They will make a show of his parole trial and be sure to send him back in for the next 20.
If he was uncovering war crimes, did he first try to report them through his chain of command?
If not, then I really don't think this is a defence.