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

'

See what I mean ?

The above does not impact the determination of his guilt or innocence.

He may be regarded as a hero by many. He may actually be a hero.

Heros are people who put themselves at risk for the good of others. Manning knew and accepted the risk inherent in his actions... that may be what makes him a hero. But it is not particularly heroic to seek to squirm out of consequences that you theoretically accepted. It is also not particularly heroic if he was to a large extent motivated by spite.

One answer to your question could be found in the oligopoly of 6 entities controlling 90 percent of US news coverage, and the dearth of coverage of the Manning case by those six entities.

Another is that it's not legal technicalities allowing the hiding of these things at all. People generally do not react to matters to which they know nothing about. We know every detail of entertainer's lives, sports heroes lives, and the lives of those that dominate what used to be the "Gossip Pages" and what are now the Front Pages of newspapers. The same paper sources of news now do the same with the web pages that people turn to in order to acquire information.

Back in 2002-2003, McClatchy news was the only outlet to call what was deceptive about the buildup to the Iraq War deception. They weren't a newspaper of record, had no wide play in the broadcast media, and what they investigated thoroughly and wrote about remained largely ignored.

In the past few months, the Manning case has been covered by foreign news outlets, but Americans don't look to RT or other foreign outlets for world news, and so Americans remain ignorant. Ignorance may be bliss, but in this case, ignorance is just ignorant.

The question is, what can the public do to get news outlets to cover fully the news that can and does drive policy, while spending less time on the Infotainment common to MSM coverage. Unless and until the people demand it, nothing will change.

We Americans are the least educated, best entertained populace in history. According to Jefferson, such is a recipe for disaster for the nation, and few can find any area where Jefferson wrote in this regard, and has been proven wrong.

'
It is not very heroic (or even decent) not to support heroes.

And it certainly is not decent to accuse him of spite when you have not adduced any evidence supporting that calumny.

I suppose you have emails or recordings that prove this? If not, you are making it up.


ah yes, the ol' everybody does it so it must be right. Give me a break.


You must also believe in Santa Claus. Where is the proof that they did what you "believe"?

Facts, Ardy, facts, not your beliefs are what constitute a proper argument about someone's guilt or innocence.

'
I would dearly like to exculpate the American people of guilt for the crimes of their government. It is certainly true that the totalitarian control of news in the United States does, to some degree, explain and excuse their lack of moral courage and will.

It is certainly true that in Nazi Germany most people did not know very much about the crimes of their government. It was very dangerous to go poking your nose into such matters, and, just as in the United States, people did not want to know about such matters. Even many members of the Nazi Party did not know what was going on, let alone ordinary people.

Therefore, I consider people who lived under the Nazi regime to be less culpable for the crimes of their government than Americans are for the crimes of their present government.

It takes an effort to learn the truth, but far less of an effort than it took in Hitler's Germany -- and it certainly is much less dangerous, though some danger always is present in trying to find truth which an evil, brutal regime does not want you to know -- which Bradley Manning has suffered, to his cost.

As you must know
I was specifically referring to intelligence assessments of Icelandic political actors

And Yes I said "every government does this sort of analysis.
Now you can clarify why you believe this sort of thing is wrong or unethical about this? And further why it is that such information "must" be revealed by whitle blowers?

By whitle blowers I don't know.
By whistle blowers, because all of these actions are being financed with my money. The actions taken are taken in my name. I should know how my money is being spent and what actions are taken in my name.
We are responsible for the government, and if not we, then who?
I do not authorize them to kill anyone, much less innocent women and children.

But you haven't answered my questions:
Facts, Ardy, facts.

Well, Zeke
I do not want to get into an endless pissing match on these issues. If you go to the WIki article on Manning, you will see that he had quite a few problems well beyond any issues that he da with US policies. He was gay, and wanted to do a trangernder operqtion to become a woman. He was surrounded by macho redneck in Iraq. And he was going to lose his job because of Don't as Don't tell. IN shrt, he was not a happy camper.

His first release of information coincided with these sorts of personal problems that he faced. Possibly coincidence, but if I were him I would be super pissed off at the Army and the US government.

Manning justified the release of this information because as he put it.... these are public recors, and "all information wants to be free. The fact that a document is generated by a government agency does not make it a public record. And information does not want anything, including to be free.

As I previously indicated, Manning could have accomplished his "whistle blower" agenda by simply releasing the most egregious eamples... which is in fact what he did when he first released the video of the death of the two journalists. If he had stopped, there, or with a few more selective releases.... the whistle blower claim could hold some credibility.

As I say, all of this info is in the Wiki article-- along with much more.

I have no further inclination to post on this topic. You can take what I have prevously written as my own personal opinion... and we can leave it at that, OK?

No need to get into a "an endless pissing match on these issues."
But a few observations:
1) That Manning's government was already mistreating him, as a gay soldier, only furthers the argument that they were hiding the reality behind the illusion of "fairness" in a situation where his own life was at stake. Discrimination against your own people makes the bigotry against "foreigners" that much more heinous and makes them guilty not only of a cover up but of war crimes on many levels.
Indeed, it makes the case for genocide that much more plausible.

2) The metaphorical statement that "information wants to be free" should not be taken literally. But, if you think about it, what good is the empty slogan "land of the free" if it does not apply to every citizen's right to know what actions this so-called freedom is taking in his or her name? How can you be "free" if you don't have ALL the information?

3) By allowing WikiLeaks, an organization whose sole job is to cull information and to act as whistle blower, to have access to said information you are, by default, defining your action as that of a whistle blower. And the decision as to which parts of ALL the information should be made public is better done by those who have the experience in doing it, something that Manning did not possess.

So, while you may choose not to post anything more, and I respect your decision, I feel that it is my duty to expose injustice - especially the kind aimed at innocent people.
But that's just me.