I'm also having a huge amount of difficulty finding anything admirable in Bradley Manning's actions. If he's the source, his actions are despicable, and he deserves a very long prison sentence.
Bradley Manning, and Wikileaks: Hero, Traitor, or Other?
- Thread starter Rufus Coppertop
- Start date
What I see in this is an army generally composed of decent, well meaning people who put their lives on the line for something greater than themselves. Most of them are admirable but not all. But then, obviously, I'm neither an Iraqi nor an Afghan. I wonder what your soldiers represent to the numerous Afghan and Iraqi civilians killed by accident and apparently, sometimes murdered.
I don't think Manning has betrayed everything your soldiers represent. I think he has exposed some of what they do and it's stuff that needs to be exposed.
Last edited:
No one else here is Bradley Manning?
C'mon!
*iz disappointed*
ETA: I do think it's clear that he's broken the law, but I don't see anything in the soldier's creed that's incompatible with what he's done, nor do I see anything morally wrong with it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2010
- Messages
- 3,057
- Reaction score
- 574
- Location
- The Swamplands
- Website
- www.galehaut.com
I'd like to highlight this:
I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
Ruv Draba
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,114
- Reaction score
- 1,322
I understand that the Creed is not the oath of enlistment, which according to the army website, reads as follows, bolding mine:
Is that entirely inconsistent with leaking a document, if you felt that the constitution would otherwise be imperilled?
This ethical dilemma has come in various forms for many public servants -- sometimes they feel they need to serve the nation they belong to by opposing the administration employing them.
All right then, I'm Bradley Manning too.
Truthfully though, I wonder if I'd have his courage in a situation like that?
I am aware of the difference between the oath and the creed.
That speaks of his motives which I'm not sorry I see as self serving. He betrayed his creed and if I were or had been an American Soldier I wouldn't want him covering my ass when I was on the line... and neither would my husband who did serve. He committed treason but worse he betrayed his brothers.
He's a coward and a criminal.
I'd like to highlight this:
I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
Wow.
Laugh as you may, these soldiers take that creed very seriously and I'm proud of those who do and would never disrespect what they believe.
Last edited:
Ruv Draba
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,114
- Reaction score
- 1,322
My position is somewhere between these, but closer to Tiny's than Kuw's.
I'm not Bradley Manning, because I don't support his motives or methods. I agree that some of the outcome has served the public interest, but I don't believe he should or will escape a criminal conviction. I think he's a criminal and a coward, but not a traitor and I don't think it has much to do with "betraying one's brothers". Here's my reasoning...
My objection to Manning's motive
In intelligence security circles, they sometimes classify the motives for betrayal under MICE -- short for Money, Ideology, Compromise and Ego.
Manning was disaffected, and his leaks were vast and indiscriminate. It wasn't driven by Money or Compromise, and he has no high-minded Ideology. I think he was feeling trapped -- a prisoner -- in his job and in his life and disgusted with his employer, and wanted to make them pay. He didn't resign or seek other work, didn't confess to what he'd done.
I think he was acting from frustration and contempt, and wanted some attention for what he'd done -- to the extent of talking about it on chat-rooms, so I'm putting it down to Ego.
My objection to his methods
He was furtive, indiscriminate, didn't attempt lawful whistleblowing channels, didn't resign, didn't confess to his employers or authorities, and bragged about what he'd done. I think he has no reason to be proud of his acts.
So yes, Tiny -- I agree: he's a coward and a criminal.
Honourable Whistleblowers for Comparison
I contrast Manning's case with that of Australian Iraq War whistleblower Andrew Wilkie whose story I recounted here. Wilkie had a very specific issue of conscience, resigned from his employment so he could tell his story and made every effort to act lawfully, responsibly and honourably while serving the public interest. The situation of CIA agent Valerie Plame is similar. Whistleblowers can be honourable people, but I don't think Manning is of their calibre.
Where that leaves Manning
Manning has confessed to a criminal act. While it could be argued that it's a court-martial offence, I think a civil court is actually the better venue for trial because what he did is more to do with being a government employee than a soldier. I also think a court martial is more likely to be symbolic than just, and I don't imagine that it'll be as transparent.
I think his nine-month incarceration in solitary confinement is cruel, unnecessary and unhelpful.
I think Manning's a dickhead, not a traitor. But his culpability rests with him -- it doesn't extend to journalists, whose job it is to serve the public interest with any information they get.
US Protection for Whistleblowers
I'm a strong supporter of whistleblower protection (including military whistleblowers), and I think that "betraying one's brothers" is irrelevant. What's important is that citizens serve their country.
But I don't think Manning's is a genuine whistleblower case -- I think it's more a case of a disgruntled employee throwing a spanner in the works.
In any case, the US has some whistleblower protection legislation (e.g. the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, and the No-FEAR Act, 2002), and moreover, the US Department of Defence has a directive in respect of whistleblower protection.
Is it adequate? I don't think Manning's case will test it, because I don't think it covers him -- nor should it.
Where it leaves us
Whistleblowing should be a rare, last resort -- we shouldn't need vast data dumps to provide us with routine government transparency.
Manning's case shows what government employees might do, but I don't think it's anything like what they should do.
Manning deserves a jail sentence, but I don't think punishing Manning will stop others from doing the same, for equally stupid reasons.
Last edited:
With regards to the thread title. Manning is ether a hero, or other. Certainly not a traitor to the US citizens.
Taken from Tinys creed post
Taken from Tinys creed post
Here's my thoughts:
If Manning were truly upset with the human rights abuses he claims happened, he should and could have taken the information to a respected news outlet such as the New York Times or Le Monde or any number of newspapers that specialize in doing these types of exposes.
He could have taken them to Amnesty International. Or the Red Cross Society. Or to the UN - any number of bodies there would have leapt on the information and brought it to light.
Instead he copied a LOT of nothing but gossip (does the fact that a "blonde woman, maybe a nurse" accompanied Ghadafi really need to be "exposed"?) and went to an uncontrolled, barely legitimate news organization that doesn't answer to anyone.
Now I can buy Wikileaks enticing him with tales of fame and fortune for being a whistleblower. Young, stupid and easily convinced to play the hero.
But he had options. He had other news groups who would have leapt at the information given and would have had some restraint in releasing the documents. All I'm seeing from WikiLeaks is a lot of gossip and an attempt to foster anarchy by putting out information about all the countries, not just the US.
Manning is an idiot. And a traitor. And a dumb kid who will probably end up with some sort of new identity because very few places in the US will take him in.
I feel sorry for him but you reap what you sow. And if he was really a "hero" then he'd have chosen another outlet for his disclosures.
jmo.
If Manning were truly upset with the human rights abuses he claims happened, he should and could have taken the information to a respected news outlet such as the New York Times or Le Monde or any number of newspapers that specialize in doing these types of exposes.
He could have taken them to Amnesty International. Or the Red Cross Society. Or to the UN - any number of bodies there would have leapt on the information and brought it to light.
Instead he copied a LOT of nothing but gossip (does the fact that a "blonde woman, maybe a nurse" accompanied Ghadafi really need to be "exposed"?) and went to an uncontrolled, barely legitimate news organization that doesn't answer to anyone.
Now I can buy Wikileaks enticing him with tales of fame and fortune for being a whistleblower. Young, stupid and easily convinced to play the hero.
But he had options. He had other news groups who would have leapt at the information given and would have had some restraint in releasing the documents. All I'm seeing from WikiLeaks is a lot of gossip and an attempt to foster anarchy by putting out information about all the countries, not just the US.
Manning is an idiot. And a traitor. And a dumb kid who will probably end up with some sort of new identity because very few places in the US will take him in.
I feel sorry for him but you reap what you sow. And if he was really a "hero" then he'd have chosen another outlet for his disclosures.
jmo.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2010
- Messages
- 3,057
- Reaction score
- 574
- Location
- The Swamplands
- Website
- www.galehaut.com
No one's laughing. Manning has claimed from the get-go that he believed he was upholding the ideal I quoted when he leaked the information.
Can you explain how it is that this isn't the case?
You might be right. Because he's either very dumb or very brave. jmo
I can't personally fault you your other points, but Manning didn't brag about what he'd done in a chat room. The documentary I linked to showed the the chat log on the private facebook chat in which he discussed his concern over what he'd done with someone he knew. This was the only online evidence that I've heard of. Not at all the same as traipsing into a chat room and announcing how awesome you are.
Last edited:
Bolding mine.
I'm not sure I understand this. Manning gave the stuff to Wikileaks, who gave it to the New York Times. And I don't know what restraint the Times showed that Wikileaks did not. So I'm not sure what to take from this critique, besides Manning fucked up because he went to a middle man.
If Manning's beef was with the human rights abuses during war, that's all he had any remotely justifiable reason to release. The rest of it (which was the vast majority) had nothing to do with any of that, and it's not clear how much harm the completely pointless release of confidential diplomatic documents will eventually do.
He's a narcissistic scumbag for being so indiscriminate about what he released. And he should be punished severely for that.
I have great admiration for real whistleblowers who bring to our attention real corruption and abuse. Bradley Manning shares little, if anything, in common with them.
He's a narcissistic scumbag for being so indiscriminate about what he released. And he should be punished severely for that.
I have great admiration for real whistleblowers who bring to our attention real corruption and abuse. Bradley Manning shares little, if anything, in common with them.
Well, I think the NYT wouldn't have released the gossip about Ghadifi if they'd gotten the info directly instead of one large infodump from Wiki - and I'm not even sure if Wiki bothered to *not* send something down the line. A lot of the cables have nothing to do with abuse of power or human rights abuses. Many of them are just gossipy info, the type of stuff that circulates in every business about who's zooming who and general yammerings without any real "secrets".
The NYT would have been more responsible than WikiLeaks, I'm sure of that. WikiLeaks doesn't answer to anyone and is a volunteer group that seems set more on anarchy than helping anyone other than themselves.
Manning could and should have chosen better.
As for the months in isolation - I doubt he'd do well in the general population. Don't forget, solitary isn't just a punishment - it may be used to protect a potential target of abuse.
And, really... there are more horrible cases of abuse other than this. Let's just start with the woman in Iran about to be stoned to death for supposed adultery.
just sayin'
Ruv Draba
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,114
- Reaction score
- 1,322
From Mail Online, 29-Nov-2010:
He's bragging, referring to himself in third person, writing a narcissistic adventure with himself as the central hero. A bullied loner with poor impulse control and acrimoniously-divorced parents, I think he's operating from ego.
And while there's a bit of ideology at the end, it seems to me more like an excuse. He just wanted the power to feel important, and was happy to betray his responsibilities and potentially screw people up to do so.
Maybe, but so what? I don't know a lot about the Ghadafi stuff, but from the way you've described it, it doesn't seem like it really matters one way or the other whether anyone hears about it.
They did bother. And now we've gone from "nothing but gossip" to "many of them are just gossipy info".
I'm not sure of that at all. And Wikileaks has nothing to do with anarchy.
Last edited:
dmytryp
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 7,207
- Reaction score
- 700
- Location
- Stranded in Omaha
- Website
- www.webpage4u.co.il
Here is the thing. While Wikileaks at least has some defense in trying to redact things that would endanger people, Manning doesn't have that. He took unredacted documents that could clearly endanger people's lives to a party, while he had no actual way of knowing what exactly they would do with this info. Sheryl's point, imo, is that when you turn to a respectable western newspaper you have some level of confidence they would try and minimize danger to individuals. What confidence did he have in Wikileaks?
And, as others had said, he isn't a whistleblower. He didn't take specific documents about abuses, he took a shitload of documents that have only negative impact on American position and military, but in no way cross the line of criminality.
Has anyone been physically harmed (other than Manning or Wiki people)due to the release of the documents?
dmytryp
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 7,207
- Reaction score
- 700
- Location
- Stranded in Omaha
- Website
- www.webpage4u.co.il
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5609341&postcount=53
And it would be very hard to estimate whether/how many people were put at risk due to overall picture of US military procedures that US enemies got from these documents.
But this is largely irrelevant. As I said, Wikileaks at least has the defence that they tried to reduct the names. Manning doesn't. He had no way of being sure this would happen. Hind sight isn't defense.
Does it matter at all whether they actually have, when there's absolutely no doubt that the possibility exists?
A link to a link? And then all the link did was try to blow a bunch of smoke up my ass?
In the end, the answer is no. No one has been (physically) harmed.
You mean like the possibility of getting killed in a car accident on the way to work?