http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/30/bradley-manning-wikileaks-judge-verdict
Though convicted of nearly everything else.

Wondering what the point of your post is? Basiclly you’ve just linked to a headline that’s been plastered all over the media so most , if not all, will be already aware and you’ve expressed no opinion on it?

So what do you think? Or are you just showing off that you can read the news?

Wrong side of bed, littleG?

Yet another episode to illustrate the double standards of the self-appointed bearer of free world morals. No way were they going to go lenient on him, neither were they going to sentence him to death. Regardless, what has changed regarding how other nations see the US? Nothing IMHO. We already know what they’re capable of and the lengths they will go too. No doubt they’ll soon catch up with Snowden …

Meanwhile, behind the scenes there will likely be high-fives instead of repercussions.

I’m very much in two minds about this. I have the feeling (as I do with Edward Snowden) that the reason for the charges isn’t so much about what has been leaked or the ‘official’ charges (i.e. the releasing of classified documents) as about the fact the he has seriously embarrassed the US and the authorities are in effect after revenge.

That said, he did release classified documents and that is a serious offence in most countries around the world and should perhaps not go unpunished.

We already know what they’re capable of and the lengths they will go too.

No different to the UK.

No different to the UK.

Still a lot less than many other countries.

He had a contract. He knew the rules. He broke the rules. He gets punished. Hard to see how he can complain really.

Treason ? carries a very long spell inside I wold imagine ?What did he think would happen when he was found out?

What Manning and Snowden have done seems to little to do with any moral stance that they or others are arguing. Manning in particular seems to have had other issues as a motivation. Snowden seems to be similar, whenever I see him interviewed I find him unbelievable. Without getting into the rights and wrongs of what they have leaked, the impression to me is that they have been very miss guided if not a bit stupid in the thought processes on the outcome of their actions. As such I have sympathy for them.

What does/did the Berk expect? If you did the same in the UK you’d hardly be let free, be interviewed by the chatty man.

If Governments didn’t use “official secrets” acts to hider crimes and embarrassing balls ups, then the likely hood of these crimes happening would be far less.

In the documents he leaked was the video of the gunship attack on the civilian ambulance, and the strafing of paramedics and children. He should be given a medal and a tikatape parade for revealing these crimes.

He had a contract. He knew the rules. He broke the rules. He gets punished. Hard to see how he can complain really.

So just following orders is an acceptable excuse?

He had a contract. He knew the rules. He broke the rules. He gets punished. Hard to see how he can complain really.

Because many of things he released were of public importance and interest, like how American troops were murdering iragi civilians and handing suspects over to Iraqi death squads. These are not part of the “contract” he signed.

Wonder if he’ll get a longer sentence than the jailers of Abu Graib ( 3-7 years) ?

He had a contract. He knew the rules. He broke the rules. He gets punished. Hard to see how he can complain really.

So whistleblowing is unacceptable in every circumstance?

So just following orders is an acceptable excuse?

Let’s not start with the nuremberg bollocks please.

The point is (and I don’t really care about what he’s done), the decision is not his to make. If individuals suddenly decide that they know best and start choosing what rules to follow; bad things will happen (see Sgt Bales). Whether it was in the publics interest or not is a moot point. As I said, he can hardly be surprised that he’s going to be punished and neither can anyone else.

“So whistleblowing is unacceptable in every circumstance?”

No it’s not but better planning on his part and being a little more selective as to what and who he released the info to would have been better.

So just following orders is an acceptable excuse?

The ‘Nuremberg Defence’?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders

Usually only works if you are on the winning side 🙂

Sorry it wasn’t Whistleblowing. WTF, this isn’t a healthscare at a NHS hospital.

In the Army etc you’ll see things that personally don’t sit well at all, but you sign up for it all. You don’t have a hotline to the Sun newspaper.

The only acceptable ‘whistleblowing’ for me is for things like the My Lai massacre.

hora – Member

Sorry it wasn’t Whistleblowing

In what way was it not?

hora – Member

The only acceptable ‘whistleblowing’ for me is for things like the My Lai massacre.

What is the difference? How many people do you have to murder before it becomes OK to whistleblow?

Ironic that you choose My Lai as an example, when only one person was convicted, and he served less time than Manning already has, and with far better treatment.

Whistleblowing is civilian/in the civilian workplace.

He will have signed non-disclosure/something along the lines of the official secret acts.

The point is (and I don’t really care about what he’s done), the decision is not his to make.

So, the wearing of a uniform means you leave your morals at the door? One of the fundamental principles of any Army controlled by a civilian govt ( such as the US army ) is to minimise the impact of war on civilians, if you know that that principle has been flouted you could argue that it’s a soldiers duty to report that act to the public ( ie look at what the army does in your name)

That it embarrasses the US army is neither here nor there.

Without Manning’s action we wouldn’t have known about many of the US’s shocking crimes (the Apache attack on a group of unarmed people comes to mind).

I find it bizarre that he was convicted of theft despite the fact he COPIED the data, rather than erasing it. So what did he ‘steal’?

So, the wearing of a uniform means you leave your morals at the door?

Of course not. But permitting someones judgement of moral right and wrong over military law is a dangerous precedent.
I think we can safely say they are going to lock him up for a very long time. Nothing anyone can do about it.

the Apache attack on a group of unarmed people comes to mind

I think I saw the video transcript of this. It was really really tragic and the radio exchange had no malice. Don’t forget the US pilots were/are very jumpy in urban situations due to small arms/real risk of RPG’s suddenly popping up – so you need to (try) and understand their mindset/why this may happen.

He will have signed non-disclosure/something along the lines of the official secret acts.

So you join the civil service and sign the official secrets act. As a part of your ‘duties’ you come across someone been tortured/murdered by the state – turn a blind eye? 🙄

Of course not. But permitting someones judgement of moral right and wrong over military law is a dangerous precedent.

Yes, an argument can be made that there is a chain of command and that he should have followed it. However there is also the argument that says there needs to be a mechanism whereby individual soldiers low down in the chain of command need to be able to be assured that the Army will not operate outside the law, and will not oppress those who make that they army have broken the law known to the civilians who ultimately control it

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

I don’t think they’re supposed to operate outside of the law. There is a duty of care from the chain down not to ask individuals to do anything illegal. To do otherwise would be (and is) an abuse of trust. Any military doing so are operating outside of their remit and punishment should be (and sometimes is) meted out for this also.
The army (ours) pledges allegiance to the queen, not civilians.

hora – Member

Whistleblowing is civilian/in the civilian workplace.

But you say whistleblowing for something like My Lai is fine?

I don’t think they’re supposed to operate outside of the law.

Do you mean the likes of Manning?

The Army is part of the wider society it is not separate from it, and it draws its recruits from that same society which has a moral framework of clear rights and wrongs. The killing of civilians including children and reporters is clearly wrong. It is the duty of any member of society/ the army to bring that to the attention of the public, and has the right to assume that he/she won’t have an oppressive military try to stop that from happening. The US has a long and inglorious tradition of shooting the messenger that will undoubtedly continue with both Manning and Chapman ( when he’s caught)

Yes the British Army is ultimately responsible to the Queen, who is controlled by parliament. It’s still the moral duty of British soldiers to bring to light any wrong doings that the Army has committed

Do you mean the likes of Manning?

No, the military.

It’s still the moral duty of British soldiers to bring to light any wrong doings that the Army has committed

No, it’s not. Soldiers are taught moral courage, and not to obey an order they know to be illegal. Going to the press is not a moral duty.
The framework of moral right and wrong is generally regarded as law. The military also has law. Like wider society, the military sometimes have individuals who break these laws.
Govt are permitted control over the forces by the queen. I’m not sure I agree that they represent us, and they are certainly not controlled by the civilian population. I don’t seem to recall having a say in going to Iraq.

If he’d only released war crimes data his position would be very different, at least in my eyes. The fact is he released a whole load of other stuff as well, much of which was definitely secret but perfectly legal – diplomatic reports on foreign governments, for example.

I don’t think the Queen is controlled by parliament. Rather the Queen allows parliament to sit at her pleasure and pass laws in her name.

The attitude tends to be that it’s alright for people do to wrong as long as they’re not caught. The reaction to Manning has been that all over- “You’ve brought the country into disrepute” “By your actions you have put troops at risk”. People don’t seem keen to look at the real issues. ’twas ever thus but keeping a secret isn’t so easy these days.

Bottom line is, keep your house in order, rather than depending on suppressing the truth of what you’ve done. The problem is the original actions not the leak.

If he’d only released war crimes data his position would be very different, at least in my eyes. The fact is he released a whole load of other stuff as well, much of which was definitely secret but perfectly legal – diplomatic reports on foreign governments, for example.

+1

He just recklessly released a vast amount of information without regard as to whether there was any public interest or not and any danger or damage to individuals. The fact that one or two specific bits of information may have a public interest defence doesn’t justify hi actions.

Going to the press is not a moral duty.

Yes, it is. In a democracy, everything the state should be public apart from a very few things which can be kept secret for as short a period as possible. If the state is keeping secrets, especially embarrassing ones, it’s a moral duty to inform the citizens of what the state is doing in their name.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

I do wish people would stop using this, though – it’s a quote from Juvenal about how to make sure your wife isn’t shagging the bodyguards 😉

Manning is part of the US Army, what’s UK forces got to do with it?

All I suggested was that soldiers have a moral duty to “Bring to light” any wrongdoings, who mentioned the press?

Yes, it is

No. It’s not. Like it or not, secrets are very necessary.

All I suggested was that soldiers have a moral duty to “Bring to light” any wrongdoings, who mentioned the press?

I don’t think anyone is daft enough to believe that Manning/Assange doubted this would make the newspapers.

Like it or not, secrets are very necessary.

Some secrets are necessary for a limited period of time.

Could run into years though Ben. Information sources should be protected so that we can milk them for all their worth keep them alive.

I do wish people would stop using this, though – it’s a quote from Juvenal about how to make sure your wife isn’t shagging the bodyguards

Yes I know* but the wider use of the phrase is well tested. Like “to decimate” ( literally to kill every tenth) has now a broader more well understood meaning to kill large numbers of people.

* it may not be part of the Satires anyway, it may just have been written in later additions and has in fact been attributed to Junvenal incorrectly