Trump’s top general calls ex-president ‘fascist to the core’

[Kieran00001]

On 3/9/2019 at 6:24 AM, ezzra said:

No love lost here for this gender confused traitor, and if there is anyone loathed by everybody is a traitor, and what most infiruration the most is that this person using the very foundation of the laws he committed treason on to now protect him... 

 

There has ever been a case where someone has been universally viewed as a traitor.

 

Whistleblowerpreis, International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms and the Federation of German Scientists - 2011

Peoples Choice Award, Global Exchange - 2012

Sean MacBride Peace Prize, International Peace Bureau - 2013

Sam Adams Award, Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence - 2014

Nobel Peace Prize - 2014 nominee

 

 

[Nyezhov]

11 hours ago, Prissana Pescud said:

No, she is standing by the constitution.

Anything she says can and may be used against her. Again, and that means double jeopardy.

Totally erroneous: the Constitutional provision involved is, in laymans terms, the Self Incrimination provision. Double jeopardy has nothing to do with this matter.

 

 

Manning has immunity, so nothing Manning says can be used against Manning. Thus, contempt for failing to testify under a grant of immunity.

[Pilotman]

4 hours ago, simple1 said:

She is a whistleblower and has demonstrated bravery under immense pressure. A great deal more ethics than the helicopter gun crew who murdered innocents, including attempted murder of an ambulance crew during the same incident. One can realistic assume they and other crews committed other atrocities. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-attack

he is a traitor and should have been dealt with accordingly.  Goodness knows how many lives he put in jeopardy or had killed.  When you sign up to the Military you sign a binding covenant with your country and its people.  Break that sacred covenant by betraying secrets that result in harm and death to others, then you should pay the price.  

[ThaiBunny]

1 minute ago, Pilotman said:

he is a traitor and should have been dealt with accordingly.  Goodness knows how many lives he put in jeopardy or had killed.  When you sign up to the Military you sign a binding covenant with your country and its people.  Break that sacred covenant by betraying secrets that result in harm and death to others, then you should pay the price.  

You do realise he's only a traitor if a court says he is?

[Pilotman]

Just now, ThaiBunny said:

You do realise he's only a traitor if a court says he is?

No, he s a traitor if he is and he is. 

[Kieran00001]

13 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

No, he s a traitor if he is and he is. 

 

Would someone who stood against the government for the benefit of the people be a traitor, in your opinion?

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, Prissana Pescud said:

What on earth are you on about?

 Sexuality should have no importance in this so called discussion. (Or since YOU highlighted personal attributes, hate posts)

 Her gender has nothing to do with any debate, nor should it ever be.

 She has been pardoned for releasing information that showed criminal activity at all levels of US security forces.

But US justice says, you show us up to be criminals and we will send you to jail.

And even after you have been pardoned, we will still harass you and send you to jail.

I agree that her sexuality is completely irrelevant. I was replying to a couple of right wing posters to whom that was apparently the chief issue of importance.They had serious objections to Chomper Higgot applying the feminine pronoun to Manning. To them it was "virtue signaling.". I just pointed out that if that were the case, then Fox News and Breitbart were also engaged in virtue signaling.

[Pilotman]

11 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Would someone who stood against the government for the benefit of the people be a traitor, in your opinion?

With respect you miss the point. In who's opinion was what he did, 'to the benefit of the people', his? He was hardly in a position to understand and appreciate what the future impacts of what he was about to do, and did, were to be.  It certainly was not to the benefit of his comrades in arms who had to deal with the aftermath of his spilling of secrets. He clearly jeopardised National Security. 

[Kieran00001]

17 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

With respect you miss the point. In who's opinion was what he did, 'to the benefit of the people', his? He was hardly in a position to understand and appreciate what the future impacts of what he was about to do, and did, were to be.  It certainly was not to the benefit of his comrades in arms who had to deal with the aftermath of his spilling of secrets. He clearly jeopardised National Security. 

 

It is you who has missed the point.  She brought knowledge to the world of what they were doing in Iraq and Afghan, the airstrikes on civilians, the rendition missions, Guantanamo bay, the evil in Bush's wars that the press and aid agencies had been unable to fully uncover.  It was against the law what Manning did, but a little compromise to national security is pale in comparison to exposing the crimes against humanity committed by the Bush regime, and her global recognition demonstrates this.

[bristolboy]

47 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

he is a traitor and should have been dealt with accordingly.  Goodness knows how many lives he put in jeopardy or had killed.  When you sign up to the Military you sign a binding covenant with your country and its people.  Break that sacred covenant by betraying secrets that result in harm and death to others, then you should pay the price.  

"The US counter-intelligence official who led the Pentagon's review into the fallout from the WikiLeaks disclosures of state secrets told the Bradley Manning sentencing hearing on Wednesday that no instances were ever found of any individual killed by enemy forces as a result of having been named in the releases.

Brigadier general Robert Carr, a senior counter-intelligence officer who headed the Information Review Task Force that investigated the impact of WikiLeaks disclosures on behalf of the Defense Department, told a court at Fort Meade, Maryland, that they had uncovered no specific examples of anyone who had lost his or her life in reprisals that followed the publication of the disclosures on the internet. "I don't have a specific example," he said."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/bradley-manning-sentencing-hearing-pentagon

[blazes]

7 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

It is you who has missed the point.  She brought knowledge to the world of what they were doing in Iraq and Afghan, the airstrikes on civilians, the rendition missions, Guantanamo bay, the evil in Bush's wars that the press and aid agencies had been unable to fully uncover.  It was against the law what Manning did, but a little compromise to national security is pale in comparison to exposing the crimes against humanity committed by the Bush regime, and her global recognition demonstrates this.

 

Excellent.  Thanks for this. You stick to the point in this thread (instead of twittering on, as some do, about Grand Juries etc.)  The point being that when Manning (and later Snowden) revealed to the world exactly what the US was up to in the intelligence world, they were doing a service for all of us.  Transparency is all.  No fake news there!

Why worry about Russians "colluding" when our masters in the Pentagon can even bug the cell phone of Angela Merkell???? 

[metisdead]

An off topic post and a reply have been removed. 

[simple1]

1 hour ago, Pilotman said:

he is a traitor and should have been dealt with accordingly.  Goodness knows how many lives he put in jeopardy or had killed.  When you sign up to the Military you sign a binding covenant with your country and its people.  Break that sacred covenant by betraying secrets that result in harm and death to others, then you should pay the price.  

Posts above have proven your claims of victims as incorrect. BTW Manning was acquitted of 'aiding the enemy'

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, blazes said:

 

Excellent.  Thanks for this. You stick to the point in this thread (instead of twittering on, as some do, about Grand Juries etc.)  The point being that when Manning (and later Snowden) revealed to the world exactly what the US was up to in the intelligence world, they were doing a service for all of us.  Transparency is all.  No fake news there!

Why worry about Russians "colluding" when our masters in the Pentagon can even bug the cell phone of Angela Merkell???? 

Hogwash.

 

The topic under discussion is Manning’s refusal to give testimony to a Grand Jury and the consequences to Manning for so refusing.

 

Nothing to do with Snowden nothing to do with allegations of allegations.

[Chomper Higgot]

Manning was never tried for and so never convicted of, treason.

 

I expect the legal counsel to Manning’s Court Marshall considered ‘sacred oaths’ and all that.

 

They seem to have be satisfied not to try and convict for treason.

 

Some May believe him a traitor but that belief is not supported by the military investigation and trial of his crimes.

 

We’re all entitled to our own opinion, we don’t get to have are own facts.

 

Manning is not a traitor.

 

[Morch]

11 hours ago, bristolboy said:

"The US counter-intelligence official who led the Pentagon's review into the fallout from the WikiLeaks disclosures of state secrets told the Bradley Manning sentencing hearing on Wednesday that no instances were ever found of any individual killed by enemy forces as a result of having been named in the releases.

Brigadier general Robert Carr, a senior counter-intelligence officer who headed the Information Review Task Force that investigated the impact of WikiLeaks disclosures on behalf of the Defense Department, told a court at Fort Meade, Maryland, that they had uncovered no specific examples of anyone who had lost his or her life in reprisals that followed the publication of the disclosures on the internet. "I don't have a specific example," he said."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/bradley-manning-sentencing-hearing-pentagon

 

That no one was killed as a result is good. Got to wonder if Manning took this under consideration, though.

[Kieran00001]

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

That no one was killed as a result is good. Got to wonder if Manning took this under consideration, though.

 

Clearly she took the civilians being killed in the war crimes she exposed into consideration, its not all about ones own country but also about humanity, at least it is if you have some inside you.

[Morch]

30 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Clearly she took the civilians being killed in the war crimes she exposed into consideration, its not all about ones own country but also about humanity, at least it is if you have some inside you.

 

Oh dear, more moral posturing. Not much of a response to the point made, though. 

 

I'm not criticizing Manning's position regarding the USA's actions and policies, but wondering if the possible adverse consequences of the revelations were an ingredient in the decision process.

 

Idolizing or demonizing Manning (or pretty much most people in the public eye) is a choice. Up to you, as they say in these parts.

[Kieran00001]

55 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Oh dear, more moral posturing. Not much of a response to the point made, though. 

 

I'm not criticizing Manning's position regarding the USA's actions and policies, but wondering if the possible adverse consequences of the revelations were an ingredient in the decision process.

 

Idolizing or demonizing Manning (or pretty much most people in the public eye) is a choice. Up to you, as they say in these parts.

 

"That no one was killed as a result is good. Got to wonder if Manning took this under consideration, though."

 

I have no idea why you are not getting this.  Not all lives are American.  Of course she considered the consequence of releasing the info, that was the whole point, to save lives.