Bradley manning, hero or villian?

[Smeatza]

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.

Are you discussing the Reuters photographer incident? Because that was a war crime nothing less.
A war crime that the army tried to hide away.

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.

This is exactly why people like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are needed.
People who kill other people for a living should not be made unaccountable.

Some people aren't prepared to just follow the law, regardless of the cost to human life.

 

[shootthebandit]

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?

What this guy said. Of course its horrible that they killed people and yes one of them was a journalist but they have to understand that a journalist carrying a camera in a war zone could easily be mistaken for a guy with a weapon. Please dont take your anger out on the pilots and guys like this fella ^ instead take your anger out on the people who tried to cover this up. In WWII to you honestly believe that british bombers tried to bomb innocent germans and vice versa no they targetted industry and factories it just so happened these were in populated areas

 

[secretkeeper12]

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.

The fact that the evidence is being kept classified is the ENTIRE REASON what Manning did is so significant. Knowing WHY these people are being attacked is a pretty big deal. Governments have never been benevolent, and the U.S. is no exception. It's very naïve to assume they're always acting out of the people's best interests, because humans unfortunately are not like that. If there is truly a good reason for the incidents Manning exposed, it shouldn't be much of a problem to reveal it. There's no "threat to national security" as it has already happened. The only possible harm is some generals or politicians may be arrested for war crimes, which is a good thing considering that's the entire reason they exist.

 

[rasta111]

A lot of complaining in here... Not sure what you think is accomplished by mouthing off about this guy, fact is he did what he did, why he did it is irrelevant. He has been tried and convicted. That is his punishment.

Get off your high horses at least until you've been exposed to the scope of information this Private was entrusted with and felt needed to be exposed. He did what he thought was right to hell with the consequences which he fully accepted. That makes him a hero.

At least it should to the people he was fighting for. I don't like this military attitude of we're fighting 'just because'... If you don't know why you're fighting you shouldn't be fighting. Not to mention you are unbelievably stupid... But hey I'm just a civilian.

When the gunships show up I don't have any anti-air defense system so my opinion doesn't matter.

 

[Sutter Cane]

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?

you're still conflating morality with legality there. If he did nothing morally wrong then he shouldn't have to faceany punishment for it to be considered a good person.

 

[Scott Rothman]

"If you see something, say something" is an increasingly popular motto here. I suppose it applies to anyone except the US Government.

What Manning did was illegal, but it was also moral and well intentioned. He deserves to pardoned and praised.

 

[Sprinal]

I am amazed by how Polarised this discussion is.

It's either Bradley Mannin is a witch or he is a saint.

Both have their arguments. Both are wrong.

He is whatever you think he is. That is all. Nothing more, nothing less.

He did what he did because he believed it was right. Regardless of whether it was or wasn't he believed it was. He did it. Knowing the consequenses he did it. He didn't back down and he accepted the repocusions.

If he didn't someone else would have.

Both sides are wrong. Bradley Manning is a man. That is all. He broke an oath... maybe. He Broke the law... Maybe. He betrayed his familly and friends... maybe. Make your own opinion. Just remember it is yours and only yours. It may be shared but it is YOUR opinion. This is not science, this is politics.

 

[Captain Anon]

He's a hero, he sacrificed himself for the truth that people need to hear and care about. People don't seem to care about horrific war crimes when they are on the other side of the situation. Corruption is running a muck, and we need people like Manning to lead by example.

Actions speak louder than words.

I completely agree, fuck the greedy and selfish laws of the U.S. Government, for it is the laws of the people we should abide by I hope Bradley Manning is left off and gets praised by people for doing what was right

 

[conmag9]

So, hold on a second. The American military commits war crimes, some guy has the guts to put himself on the line to expose the truth, and instead of the sensible "WTF" directed at the people who committed war crimes, the guy telling the truth is treated like some sort of monster?

Utterly ridiculous. You can scream about "the enemy" getting access to sensitive data (funny how it's never a specific enemy, isn't it?) until you're blue in the face, but if the military hadn't, you know, committed war crimes? There would be nothing to report. The ones actually responsible should be the ones on trial here.

I don't think I'd be terribly comfortable being in the same room with those here who think his oath somehow excuses him from revealing war crimes. Blind patriotism is...yeah, not my cup of tea, thanks.

 

[PoisonTaco]

We were always at war with East Asia...

Apart from endless wars, warrant-less wiretapping and the state of our education system it's as if George Orwell was predicting the future when he wrote 1984. That book was supposed to be a warning, not a guide.

Look if you want to convict Bradley Manning on leaking classified information, then convict him on leaking classified information. He's already done his time, he's been through torture and all that crap. It's important to know what our government is doing so we can hold them accountable for it. Manning challenged the establishment and released the information for the American people. No the enemy, but for the very people he swore to protect. For that I'd classify him as a hero.

We need our democracies back. We need governments that work for us, the people. If things don't change I see it getting a lot worse in the future.

 

[Bruce]

Hero. And here is why:

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.

That precise line of reasoning was used during the Nuremberg trial, "I was just following orders." It is why it is an insult to refer to someone as a "Good German", and it is eating at the heart of the US like a cancer.

Manning managed to resist it enough to do the right thing, and expose his country's wrongdoing. Sure he gets called a traitor for it, but he is getting called a traitor by this.

 

[ResonanceSD]

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.

Except the way the court ruled meant that calling him a "Traitor" is now definitively incorrect. Not aiding and abetting your supposed enemies, and all.

 

[wulf3n]

No more or less than any of the number of similar, opposite claims.

Perhaps.

If you truly believe no one died as a result of those leaks, then you are naive.

I truly believe nothing.

I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of a statement that by its nature cannot be proven, and that it discredits any argument made with it.