US Army denies clemency for WikiLeaks source Manning

[Ulic]

During the latter part of my full military career in the British Army, I was entrusted with many documents that had to be treated with extreme levels of security. If I had ever been unable to account for a single one of these documents, I could potentially have also looked forward to a court martial.

In clear breach of the trust that had been placed in him, Manning deliberately took similar documents and made them available for all to see. If he had considered the consequences prior to taking such action, then maybe he would have had second thoughts, but it's too late to whine about it now.

As the old saying goes: "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime"...!!

Likewise. I served in the US Army and retired after 20 years. Classified documents, be they Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, Crypto, etc., are just that...Classified. Each has it's own rules for disclosure which Manning/Chealsea violated.

Mr. Manning/Chealsea broke the law. "You Play, You Pay".

Ridiculous, you only pay when you go against the powers that be. Nixon and Kissinger carpet bombed Laos and Vietnam killing an estimated 2

million people. Never mind being prosecuted for war crimes, Kissinger got the Nobel peace prize. The US captain who shot down an Iranian

passenger plan along with his weapons officer received medals for a job well done when they returned to the US. The civilians and

journalists were machine gunned down by US helicopters were said to be armed and firing at the helicopters and completely justified, that is until

the video evidence came out. Has anything happened to these trigger happy cowboys? Based on past actions a chest full of medals. Under oath

the US government members testify there is no massive data gathering operation being conducted in the USA. Edward Snowden has exposed

the lies but none of the liars have been prosecuted for perjury. Why on earth is this testimony given under oath? Bradley call me Chelsea

Manning along with Edward Snowden are heroes standing up for truth and transparency in government. Just my opinion and we will have to

agree to disagree.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Ulic

[Tchooptip]

During Pvt. Bradley's sentencing, a senior military official clearly stated that the leaks did not result in the deaths of any individuals. Yes, they made the U.S. look bad in so many ways, but as with most "top secret" documents/information, all they really illustrated was our country's misguided Iraq invasion. So comparing him to a murderer, firing an AK-47 into a crowd seems a bit over the top.

The largest intelligence leak in U.S. history, disclosed by Pfc. Bradley Manning to WikiLeaks, did not lead to the deaths of any military sources, the government's first sentencing witness testified Wednesday.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/31/59869.htm

Ok if you prefer lets compare him to some crazy man having fired an AK-47 into a crowd an by some kind of miracle no one was hit!

...But not thanks to him

Edited April 15, 2014 by Tchooptip

[Jingthing]

As former President Clinton noted about this matter, Manning's action has resulted in the loss of human lives, mostly as yet those in hostile enviroments who were publicly exposed as US intelligence informants. Certainly, pity is due Mr. Manning for the inner torment caused by his Gender Identity Disorder, but surely the public good involving hundreds of millions of citizens must come first.

Ironically, Manning is walking advirtisement for the failure of Mr. Clinton' s "Dont ask dont tell" policy towards sexual deviance in the armed forces, and an even stronger advirt for the abominable policy of the Obama regime. In a very real sense, the fault here lies as much with the politicians who let him into the armed forces as it does with Mr. Manning. They both have blood on their hands.

If there is to be no clemency for Mr. Manning, there must be none for the politicians who allowed him into the Army. Equality demands no free pass for the powerful.

Your anti-gay civil rights rhetoric is obnoxious. Manning has psychological problems and yes he is a criminal. There are many more perfectly heterosexual criminals and/or people suffering psychological problems in the armed forces and you don't blame acceptance of heterosexual soldiers as the root of that problem.

Partially correct. Heterosexuality is not listed by the WHO as a disorder (see the ICD-10). Gender Identity Disorder is. Accepting psychologically disordered individuals into the armed forces is more than a disgrace to men and women in uniform past and present, it is an unnecessary danger to national security. Manning, a man otherwise deserving of our pity, has made himself into a poster child for an America that has put faux individual rights over those genuine rights of society at large.

Those who support the "right" of a Manning to be in the armed forces are forced, by their own logic, to contribute to the NRA.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are both not mental disorders. Don't ask, don't tell was mostly about GAY soldiers. Gender Identity is something different than sexual orientation. I'm sure the U.S. government doesn't look at the WHO for classifying that. Clever of you to use that source; didn't fool me. They would likely use the DSM which no longer labels gender identity issues as a DISORDER.

This Manning case is unfortunate but it would be even more unfortunate if people fall for the trap of letting it be used to add fuel to the fire of bigotry against gay Americans many of whom serve proudly and well in the armed forces, which you seem to like to call SEXUAL DEVIANTS.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Jingthing

[sgtsabai]

I learned some years ago in a place not too far from here that a bullet doesn't care what color your skin is, what your religion is, what your sexual orientation, gender identification is or anything else. If you served in the armed forces chances are you served with some you consider a 'sexual deviate'. Manning, Snowden and all whistle blowers show tremendous courage, especially in this day and time. I was fortunate enough to met Daniel Elsberg at Texas Tech University some years ago during a Vietnam symposium. He showed courage back when he blew the whistle, courage now. The Constitution that protected him then is no longer valid. I know first hand what being a whistle blower is like, fortunately on a much, much smaller scale. I won because I was in the right, but it still cost me my career.