Bradley manning, hero or villian?

[Signa]

Hero for sure. Oaths to service are meaningless when you find yourself working for the most deranged, dangerous, and powerful force on the planet. Ok, ok, that might be a little over the top in describing the US military, but that video really disturbed me when I saw it a few years ago. That one solider that was anxious to murder those civilians should be hanged. There will be no justice for Bradley, and that makes me weep for my country.

 

[SuperSuperSuperGuy]

This here is a mess. I don't think governments should have to keep secrets in the first place, apart from, y'know, future plans that will not cause the deaths of any innocent people. The government keeps these things secret because they know it'd upset the public if they knew, which is precisely the reason why they shouldn't be happening at all. It's not right. In fact, I think it's a little childish. I think that the only secrets should ones that are actually kept for the sake of the people, not ones that are just kept for the sake of covering up what the military and government have done.

This guy isn't a villain at all. As things stand, I think hero's a bit of a strong word, but he is something along those lines.

Uh huh, you honestly think the only secrets are there to not make the public upset? Right let's go tell everyone where we keep our nukes, make military bases open to the public, give out the President's schedule o the Internet and tell the exact details of his security. They obviously only keep secrets so the public won't be upset.

Perhaps I worded it wrong. I didn't say they shouldn't keep secrets at all. In fact, some secrets actually do benefit the public, such as not revealing where nuclear weaponry is stored, or telling everyone security secrets. There comes a point, however, where secrets stop being for the good of the public and start being for the good of the government, and things that are kept secret for this reason, such as war atrocities and stuff like that, shouldn't even happen in the first place.

Really, my problem stems more from attempts to cover up bad things that have happened in the past than anything else. It's very much a "no one knows about it, so it never happened" sort of mentality, which I, personally, am very much against.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

What he did was wrong, or at least against the law. That said, sometimes what isn't lawful might be the right thing to do, BUT I think you do need to face the consequences. Also just because no one has been harmed through any direct connection to those leaks doesn't mean that no one was put in danger, and it doesn't change the fact that the leaked information did end up in the hands of the enemy (well, provided the enemy can access the internet).

Also he should've leaked it to anyone but Julian Assange, and I think he tried, but I just don't like the concept of WikiLeaks. It's a who watches the watchmen kind of thing, though maybe it needs an extra layer of "who watches" to apply to them?

Essentially this.
It was against the law, but that doesn't mean it was morally "wrong" (or at least not 100%)
Whether the law is "right" is up for debate.

He leaked information. Not in attempt to harm anyone, but since leaks CAN be used to harm people, they can't just say "it's okay." But this DOES NOT mean he is instantly a traitor, we simply need to give him due process.

Same with Snowden really. Albeit Snowden looks more guilty because he fled, but whether or not he is justified in his lack of faith in our justice system is up to opinion. Manning stayed and faced trial.

The label of traitor is a misnomer.

"One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason."

They betrayed the trust of their organizations, but they DID it in support of the cause of what they believed in. They acted against parts of their country in favor of it.

If they had accepted bribes for the information, I would not feel any sympathy for them, but other than the focus they have gotten, they have not gained.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

I don't beleive anyone here has the right or the authority to comment on this subject. No one here works in that kind of environment or knows the truth. No one here understands the US military targeting directives or doctrine, and no one has seen the whole picture, just some out of context gumpf poted on the internet... Some people see a snippit of weapon systems video, and think they are RoE experts...

He willingly and knowingly broke the law... That's all I need to know that he is a giant tosser.

EDIT: Oh... and as a note, it is not illegal to kill civilians in a war, only to target them. If you target a combatant and some non combatants die in the process this is not murder, it is collateral. These engagements are cleared by specially trained, high ranking individuals using a wealth of knowledge at their disposal. Any doubt and a Cdr won't clear the engagement, mostly out of fear of the repurcussions if it was the wrong call. At ALL times in this process a lawyer is present and has to also clear the engagement on a legal basis.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Loyalty to your country above all else.

Oh, you're one of those people who don't understand how the system works. Great.
Personally, I think that patriotism is a disease.

 

[Alandoril]

I don't understand why people are so uptight about soldiers potentially being put in danger. They fight, they kill and they die for money. How, when and why is largely irrelevant.

Strange to call someone a traitor for betraying the state as well, since America was founded by traitors.

 

[Dimitriov]

My opinion on this sort of case (and that wacky Edward Snowden too) is that what Manning did was ethically right, and that these are things that the public should know. However, it is also kind of treason. And they have to be willing to accept the consequences of that if they decide to spill their own government's secrets.

After all honesty IS important and that includes being honest to your own employers and government when you agree not to give away their secrets.

After all every country has secrets, and spilling your own country's secrets while other country's get to keep theirs just doesn't sit terribly well with me.

 

[Esotera]

Where do you get that he was tortured?

And the US government isn't doing anything more or less than any other government in the world. They are just the biggest and so more eyes are constantly on them.

He was placed in solitary confinement and stripped naked for pretty much a year. The UN has recognised that this is cruel & inhumane punishment and this will reduce the final sentence by a couple of years.

 

[Alandoril]

It was his obligation according to the fuckin' law to report those crimes. But since no one did anything about it what was he supposed to do? Stay silent while the military goes around committing war crimes? He didn't do anything wrong.

My honest feeling is that Manning is a traitor and betrayed the his oath of service. His action may have put the safety of service men in danger.

It's because of opinions like these that the government is able to do whatever the fuck it wants. Please, explain to me how exactly did he endanger anyone, and what is so treacherous about being a whistleblower and exposing fuckin' war crimes? Without people like Bradley Manning the government would be able to do whatever the hell it wants and no one would ever know. You should be thanking the man.
You actually swallowed the bullshit that the media served you about him? The same media outlets that refused Manning's leaked info. Good journalists would take that information in a heartbeat and publish it. Only the government puppets wouldn't. And that's who you chose to side with?

As a private your duty is to follow the orders your superiors give.

As a solider he took an oath that he wiling betrayed.

You will not change my mind on this topic.

Loyalty to your country above all else.

The whole thing begs a serious question too, which is the bigger traitor to you as a citizen, the government killing innocent people in your name or the individual who exposes it?

If it benefits my country then I do not care. What Manning did negatively affected my country and a betrayal of his oath. HE is a traitor.

I'm sure the Nazis were just following orders as well. Blind obedience is never an excuse or reason for turning a blind eye.

It is your duty to follow orders, IF in good conscience you feel they are the right orders to follow. But if they are obviously malicious in nature then you actually have a duty to disobey them.

Do you honestly believe that those in power care about you or any other citizen? They only care about keeping themselves in positions of authority and influence. They do not deserve your loyalty.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

I don't understand why people are so uptight about soldiers potentially being put in danger. They fight, they kill and they die for money. How, when and why is largely irrelevant.

This is fact. It's a soldiers job to do that. In any war, casulties are factored into planning, and if the objectives outweigh the losses then it is probably a successful plan.

On a different subject, it annoys me the ammout of civilians out there who think they know more about my job than me, and think that they have the moral highground because they don't work for the military. Our job is highly complex, and it took me 4 years of solid training to get to the basic standard to comprehend and understand the decisions that are made, how they are made, and to contribute to those decisions myself.
I don't go round to other people, with no knowledge of their processes or what there job entails, and tell them what to do, or that they are doing it wrong... or do I try and discredit their workplace... meh. I welcome criticism, but only from informed people!

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

I don't beleive anyone here has the right or the authority to comment on this subject. No one here works in that kind of environment or knows the truth. No one here understands the US military targeting directives or doctrine, and no one has seen the whole picture, just some out of context gumpf poted on the internet... Some people see a snippit of weapon systems video, and think they are RoE experts...

He willingly and knowingly broke the law... That's all I need to know that he is a giant tosser.

EDIT: Oh... and as a note, it is not illegal to kill civilians in a war, only to target them. If you target a combatant and some non combatants die in the process this is not murder, it is collateral. These engagements are cleared by specially trained, high ranking individuals using a wealth of knowledge at their disposal. Any doubt and a Cdr won't clear the engagement, mostly out of fear of the repurcussions if it was the wrong call. At ALL times in this process a lawyer is present and has to also clear the engagement on a legal basis.

Feel free to explain why a helicopter gunship should be allowed to destroy a group of civilians with no repercussions, go ahead.

I'm sure my weak, ill-informed civilian non-military brain will have severe trouble understanding your military targeting doctrine, but I'll do my best.

Because of the build up of evidence against the individuals in the situation. They don't just fly around attacking people without clearance... There were individuals there who were known insurgents. I don't know much about that particular incident, but from the images it looks like a typical Senior Leader, by the weapons they had and the posturing, and with the other evidence they would have had it was a legal engagement against a known threat. Whether you like it or not...

Do you think it was all on the pilot? Do you think they just let Apaches fly off to find and kill stuff without having senior commanders in the loop?

 

[Flatfrog]

it was reckless, immoral, and most likely ended up getting some of those who worked with NATO killed. I have no sympathy for him in regards to his conviction or punishment.

This is in clear contrast to the collateral murder video, where US forces opened fire on civilians and their rescuers, and definitely killed them. You're right, he's such a bad guy (reckless AND immoral) for exposing that to the world.

My feeling is that Manning was justified in releasing everything except the diplomatic cables. The leaks of the helicopter video and other cover-ups were genuine, direct evidence of wrong-doing by the military which deserved to be exposed.

The diplomatic cables were a different matter. Manning just got hold of a bunch of secret information and decided to release it to the world, *just in case* there was something juicy there. It was a huge info-dump of a large amount of mostly innocuous conversation, and Manning left it up to WikiLeaks and the press to look through it, see if they could find anything important and release it - and of course once it was out there, it was only a matter of time before the entire unredacted information became public, including some genuinely sensitive material. And while there were a few important discoveries there (including evidence that the US had been spying on its allies) most of the 'revelations' that came out were no more than embarrassing gossip. So yes, I think on balance more harm than good came out of releasing the cables and it was irresponsible.

But all that being said, does Manning deserve the treatment he's received? Absolutely not. He broke the law, but he was not guilty of 'espionage' by any sensible definition, since he wasn't working for any other group or country.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

There was no evidence, haha! They were bloody journalists. It was covered up afterwards cos they knew they fucked up. Your shameful apologist attitude is disgusting, and your blind faith in the competence of the chain of command is breathtaking.

I don't need to take this abuse. I don't need to justify my job to you, or the chain of command I serve in. I don't need to be berrated by someone elses actions, who doesn't even serve in my military. There was evidence... but hey, guess what, it was classified and not released. These are matters you are not qualified to speak in. Leave it to the professionals.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I think basically everyone exposing sides of the military or government that the government deliberately conceals because they know the public wouldn't approve is doing the right thing, irrespective of the law, and I think that where the government is happy to waive rights because it feels it is acting in the interests of the people, it shouldn't then be allowed to use the law when that is exposed.

 

[TheEvilCheese]

I think he did a basically good thing but went about it in the wrong way. Assange clearly has massive power issues and is not someone I'd trust with life endangering information.

You know the Guardian nearly broke the news, the difference being they wanted to censor certain names to stop people getting killed as a result. Their behavior with Snowden has only affirmed my belief that they would have been the best people to break the news.

But on a basic level I think he did the right thing, the life of human beings should come before any perceived loyalty to a group of politicians.