Capitol Hill Blue Forums Misc. Topics The Media Bradley Manning: A Window Into The American Soul

'
Bradley Manning: A Window Into The American Soul[/b]

emphasis added

I repute this as one of the most brutal and savage acts of violence against an innocent man that I have ever witnessed.




[U.S.) added.

I am having such a hard time ginning up any sympathy for Bradley Manning. It's not as if there is any question about his guilt, or the fact that his treason cost lives. I recognize that there are issues about his detention conditions (although I think that there is plenty of evidence that he has exaggerated for the Court - it's an effort to get extra credit for time served, and is a routine technique which occurred in every case I ever tried where pretrial confinement was involved), and I have my own problems with the drone program, but I think that there is a significant amount of "willingness to believe" anything that supports an anti-war position, and deliberate ignorance about the consequences of his actions. By the way, the Rosenbergs, it turns out, were actually guilty, too. So, while I agree with many positions you have taken in the past, Bradly Manning is no "innocent." Stupid, naive, egotistical, confused, yes, but not innocent. He knew what he was doing, and did it consciously, with forethought and with depraved indifference of the consequences of his actions.

'
I fail to see what the case of the Rosenbergs, the better part of a century in the past, has to do with this topic.

You are very positive in asserting that Manning's "crimes" have cost lives, but you adduce no evidence to support that statement. Perhaps you would be so good as to enlighten us with information which you know and I don't.

As far as I can see, his "crime" was exactly the opposite -- revealing murders committed by American military personnel, murders of innocent civilians, including small children, committed with the utmost callousness, brutality, and indifference to human life which one may imagine. Only someone whose humanity has been entirely corrupted would not feel outrage at the vileness and loathsomeness of the crimes committed by those American soldiers.

Do not American soldiers take an oath not to commit such war crimes, and to reveal any war crimes of which they are aware?

Or do those international treaty obligations no longer have any force in the Nazoid rogue regime which the United States seems to have become?

NW,
I fail to see any crime at all. The only treason one can really commit is that of betraying one's humanity. What Manning did was expose the lies and atrocities that are the result of one country's attempt to ruthlessly, and with malice of intent and forethought, dominate and subjugate another.
The Americans that might (and I have seen no proof that there actually were "consequences", as you say) have been affected were soldiers and were there to kill. The still uncounted civilian dead of that conflict were the ONLY TRUE VICTIMS. And if Manning's actions saved one of those lives (and in the process American lives as well) he is indeed a hero and not a villain.

As for the Rosenbergs, well, please get your facts straight. What exactly were they guilty of? Your assumption of their guilt belies jingoism that I would not expect of you.
The fact that they helped get atomic information "out", as it were, probably represents the main reason we are still here. By allowing a cruel and crazed government to monopolize such technology -
I mean the government that perpetrated these acts:

- would have led to destruction beyond our wildest imagination. If there ever really was a "balance of power" and the inability to initiate a nuclear war, we all have the Rosenbergs to thank. (But only in part, seeing as how their participation could hardly be considered pivotal.)
Not, however, in the way the U.S. government thanked its own scientists. I mean, of course, Dr. Oppenheimer who was driven to despair and suicide by his "grateful nation" because he too had second thoughts about using the fruits of his labor. He also discovered that he was lied to when told that the Nazis were close to developing similar technology.
No sir, history will condemn (and to some extent already has) the ogre that this country has become.
The actions of true patriots, those who would attempt to save lives and stop senseless killing, should be rewarded, but, alas, here we have a history of destroying those who would save us from ourselves.

Gentlemen, you are being quite selective in your perceptions. If Private Manning had focused on only those events or evidence which were about war crimes or law violations he might have been considered a "whistleblower." He did not do that. He leaked hundreds of thousands of pages of classified and sensitive information without scrubbing it, filtering it, or understanding any of it. He was completely indiscriminate, and that may have been the worst part of his crime. Included in the information were battlefield intelligence notes which identified people cooperating with our forces, methods of operation, locations, etc. He was aware through his training and responsibilities that what is referred to as OPSEC - Operational Security - is important because even mundane information can be used by enemies of the United States to harm national security and even individuals. If you are an enemy of the United States with knowledge of where operations are occurring, how they are conducted, where our vulnerabilities are, and who is cooperating in providing information to us, actions can be taken, methods can be developed, and targets can be identified.

I recognize that this is not an argument I can "win" - as, this has not been a rational discussion, but ideological and devoid of factual elements - my point is that in your zeal to attack what you perceive to be "bad things," you (collectively) are willing to ignore the ramifications of the actions that are taken and laud the clear criminality of someone of whom you know almost nothing, about something which you clearly know little. My point about the Rosenbergs was the same thing - people defended them (and attacked them) for purely ideological reasons without considering the implications of their known acts.

Let me be really specific here: If someone fires a loaded firearm into a crowded room and kills someone, that is considered first degree murder, under what is known as "depraved indifference." If someone fires that same weapon into the room and miraculously fails to hit any one, he has still committed a crime, though a lesser one. It doesn't matter if he believes that someone in that room may have committed a crime, there are plenty of innocent victims who have been attacked indiscriminately. In many ways you are justifying the same behavior by Private Manning that you are condemning in others (generally, anyone who wears a uniform or represents the United States). The broad-based assertions of "war crimes" and his "laudable intentions" are just a smoke screen for a morally corrupt argument - the ends justify the means, and collateral effects are excusable if the cause is "just - indifference to reality because of an ideological standpoint.

That it is difficult to identify particular items to particular events is not a measure of the harm, but only a statement of the difficulty of proof. We don't know which victim's deaths can be attributed to Manning's actions because the actual killings are being perpetrated by third parties, and information that he provided was only partially responsible as the intelligence was amalgamated with other information to complete the plan. So, for example, if someone commits a series of robberies and deposits the ill-gotten gains into the same personal bank account where he deposits his paycheck, we can never identify which specific dollars came from his wages and which were the wages of sin - they are fungible and thoroughly mixed. Such fine distinctions are not required to prove criminal activity and seize the bank account. So too, here, Manning provided information to enemies with clear intent to harm Americans, and in particular the Soldiers of the United States who were his fellows in arms. That these enemies had access to other information, and were committing other crimes against other people (more Iraqis and Afghanis have been killed by fellow countrymen than Americans) is immaterial to the particular sources of their information.

You accuse me of jingoism because labeling is easier than arguing from facts - because the facts do not support your assertions. Let's get back to them, shall we? Bradley Manning took an oath - one I have taken myself - which states:
He violated that oath. His actions were violations of law, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and of the Constitution. That he (and you) justify them as supporting a "greater good" does not obviate that. He knew what he was doing was illegal, could harm others, and did it anyway. Whether he hit anyone in the room is immaterial to the crime. But, there is also evidence that he did hit people in the room. NYT So, by all means, let us pretend that the information was not received or used by enemies of the United States and quibble about how many angels inhabit Bradley Manning's body.

The charges against Manning are specific, and he has offered a guilty plea to some of them. The most serious charge, aiding the enemy, is generalized, but the elements are there - Article 104, UCMJ

Finally, we do know that operatives and cooperating Afghanis have been targeted and killed. We know that the perpetrators had access to sources of information - including Manning's leaked documents - that identified these individuals. We know that bombers in Afghanistan (and Iraq) adjust their methodology as they learn our methods of defense against them. We know that information included in Manning's leaked documents discussed the efficacy of, and methods of, defense and other operational specifics. We know that they have access to and use the internet to obtain this information and that Manning was aware of this methodology. We may never know - nor do we need to know - what specific pieces of information Manning supplied that aided which particular attacks. We only need to know that he intended to provide that information and that it was received by the enemy. We also know that "al Quaeda" and affiliated terrorist organizations are avowed enemies of the United States. All of the elements are there.

Unfortunately, NW, despite your elegant legal palaver, you have still provided NO PROOF of a crime, nor the intention of committing one.
You don't know Mr. Manning any better than I do. You cannot avow to his intent.
As for the Rosenbergs, at the time they were murdered by the state there was no PROOF of their involvement -
that only surfaced much later. So they were guilty in the future?

Your attempt to disguise the political aspects of the Manning case behind a hypothetical legal argument clearly demonstrates
lack of any real evidence of a crime.

Again, there is nothing to "win" here. We all lose when we, wittingly or not, allow our government to "cover up" its crimes
by falsely accusing others.

Of course there is an ideological element: the crime of which he is accused is an ideological one, not a technical legal argument. He is accused of aiding a perceived "enemy", whose status as such is purely ideological.

These so-called "enemies of the United States" are the result of an ideological position with respect to a people who feel they
have been persecuted by our government.
Labeling "all people" terrorists does not make it so. There are legitimate grievances against the U.S. -
this is not a justification of acts of terrorism by either side - and the war against the Iraqi and Afghan people was
initiated by the U.S.

From what I read of your post, you rely on the fact that something could have resulted from his actions. But it did not (in any concretely
proven way).
I have seen no proof that he willingly intended to hurt anyone or anything except a government that was trying to cover up its atrocities.

EZ, all I intended to do when entering this topic was to keep it on an honest, intellectual level. I have no intention of trying to "debunk" anyone's ideological stance - it is based upon belief. I have pointed out that the entire "argument" fails because of its internal inconsistencies. Every aspect of the accusations against my discussion are based upon endemic faults of its own. Rather, I have explicated quite specifically the elements of the crimes of which Private Manning has been accused - many elements of which he has specifically, and publicly (through his attorney) admitted, so I'm not sure what "proof" you think I am missing - it's not conjecture, it is based upon the public posturing of the defense. Feel free to be specific, as I have.

Again, your argument is not about the facts but what you would like them to be, based upon a philosophical belief system. I am trying, mightily, to hold up a mirror. I know you to be intellectually serious, but on this subject, I think you are willfully ignoring those elements which do not support your position. I understand that, but I do not for a moment believe it to be an intellectually honest one - and I mean that in a human, not pejorative, sense. It is purely ideological. That is all the point I intended to make. When you say "I have seen no proof that he willingly intended to hurt anyone" it is because you refuse to see it. I have not argued that Manning's treatment is appropriate, I have not argued that the wars were justified, I have not argued that The United States has been a pristine actor - I have simply pointed out that Private Manning is not a saint or "innocent" - your phrase. He is an accused criminal whose admitted actions meet the definition of the crimes of which he is accused. He may have felt "justified" in doing what he did, but so did Hitler. Excusing that behavior as "morally superior" is sophism.

Let me break it down to the nub: Bradley Manning has admitted to deliberately leaking classified information which he had reason to know would harm the legitimate interests of the United States and put lives at risk. Period. Everything else is disinformation and beside the point.

Actually not.
And comparing him to Hitler, frankly NW
Your facts are lacking a major element: what he admitted doing was leaking the information to Wikileaks which, as far as I know, is not a sworn enemy of the United States. Or maybe they are?
You refuse to address any evidence that what he did was intentional or meant to be delivered or sold to a "sworn enemy".
And really, NW, for you to ignore the obvious political aspects of this and try to make it into some hypothetical legal argument, without proof no less, is not a serious argument, in fact, it appears to be willful blindness.
You are judging him with malice. I am not the one basing my argument on belief, I think t'is you. You are assuming, of course facts not in evidence, that he intentionally wanted this information to get into enemy hands. And of course, the fact that there are no proven consequences makes it even more "belief based".
Your position is ideological, not mine. Prove to me that he intended to deliver the information to Al Qaeda. No such proof exists.
But it is amusing how people become defensive when these so-called "national security" issues come to the fore.
NW, I know you to be a serious and intelligent person (from your posts, obviously, haven't had the pleasure yet of meeting you personally, but maybe, one day?) but I do not think you are being impartial in this particular case.

Let's try again: Go back, read the elements of the crime of aiding the enemy.
a) He leaked classified information.
b) He knew that that information would be made public.
c) He knew that the United States is engaged in hostile activities.
d) He knew that elements of hostile forces use public information to gain advantage in staging attacks against American forces.
Ergo, by making that information public and available to enemy forces he engaged in aiding the enemy. It really is that simple.

Politics have nothing to do with my argument, nor are they a defense to the criminal act - my only point in bringing Hitler into the argument is to point out that outrageous things can be justified for the "greater good" - which is entirely your argument. The road to hell is paved with "good intentions." I never claimed that Bradley Manning was "innocent," nor did I claim he was the devil's right-hand man. I merely pointed out that: 1) he proceeded, with knowledge aforethought, to commit a criminal act, and deserves to face the consequences of his actions; and 2) I have no sympathy for him. He made his bed, he may sleep in it.

Now, having made a simple and cogent argument, where is the fault in the reasoning? Is political expediency a defense? No. Is any element of the crime lacking? No. Where is this political bent I am accused of having?