Bradley Manning to speak in public for first time in two years US Army private Bradley Manning will speak publicly for the first time in two years, when he's called as a witness in a pre-trial hearing later today. Manning, who is accused of "aiding the enemy" by handing over army secrets to Wikileaks, is expected to be called to testify at Fort Meade army base in a hearing that's expected …
This post has been deleted by its author
He leaked whatever he could. He therefore endangered allied personnel.
They should shoot him to send a clear message to would be traitors.
What if your life was put at risk by someone like Manning?
He has not got the guts to reclaim his honour. A squad of six riflemen could retrieve a scrap of it, at dawn.
I haven't seen any hard proof that the information that was leaked has directly or indirectly endangered allied personnel, except his own which has widely been reported on.
Not saying what he did was justified, just the argument you use is right up there with 1 download == 1 lost sale.
1 download == 1 lost sale.
Straw man rubbish.
Nope nothing like that at all.
Al Queada will study all the info relevant to them, which mountain routes are known/noticed by the allies,
what tactics they think work and those that don't. It handing the enemy info they could not have otherwise got.
He deserves to be shot
No, it's exactly like that because it's just as idiotic an argument. Have you actually studied at the information released and what he had access to?
I'm sure they get lots more secret information from the people working directly with the forces, then again i could be wrong... maybe it goes down like this "shit guys, we need to know where to plant a roadside bomb..." "Sigh... ...alright, I'll hit up Wikileaks again"
Again, no proof has ever been shown that what was leaked has ever caused one causality.
Really it does not matter what he leaked. The army classifies information at various secrecy levels for a reason, and anyone leaking it is by definition a traitor and aiding the enemy. In WWII they guy would have been shot already! If the US army wants to keep credibility (and secrets) it has to shoot manning.
@AC 16:16. Does the US Government shoot spies for 'the other side' that have been captured?
I think not. So why the ire for Manning?
Recently, in the United States, from public records:
2010: Dongfan Chung. Sentenced to 15 years for passing secrets to China.
2010: Anna Chapman and 9 friends. Arrested, then deported in a swap with Russia for 4 US agents.
2010: Kendall Myers, and wife. Sentenced to life in prison for spying for Cuba.
2010: Noshir Gowadia. Spying for China.
2010: Pedro Leonardo Mascheroni, and wife. Spying for Venezuela.
2010: Glenn Shriver. Spying for China. 4 years imprisonment.
2010: Minkyu Martin.
2011: Mohamad Anas Haitham Soueid. Spying for Syria. Sentenced in 2012 to 18 months.
2011: Kexue Huang. Passing on information about pesticides to China, so probably does not count.
2012: Alexander Fishenko. Indicted along with 11 others, as an agent for the Russian military.
None of the above have been shot.
"In WWII they guy would have been shot already!"
No he wouldn't. Read it:
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_the_United_States_military
Murder and rape get you shot or hung (or rather: used to). Nobody has been executed for aiding the enemy.
"Really it does not matter what he leaked. [...] anyone leaking [Information] is by definition a traitor and aiding the enemy."
Even if the information is no use to the enemy? So leaking information that in no way...let me think of a word...aids the enemy, is by definition aiding the enemy?
That doesn't seem to follow the normal rules of logic.
".....Even if the information is no use to the enemy?...." It is not the possible value of a secret to the enemy if leaked but the fact that something designated as a secret, for which an oath has been sworn to protect, has been leaked. The "aiding an enemy" is an add-on.
For example, if Manning had leaked the combination for the safe in the Whitehouse Oval Office, this would be seen as a big secret, despite it being of little value to AQ or the Taleban as they are unlikely to get into the Oval Office any time soon. But, leaking the times at which the canteens in Bahgram is serving lunch every day, whilst seeming to be a minor secret to you, could be of great value to AQ and/or the Taleban if they are planning an attack on Bahgram. Leaking either secret is an equal crime, the additional charge of "aiding" with the latter is the cherry added on top.
This post has been deleted by its author
Franchises of what? Islam?
Thats about the only thing that links any of these so-called terrorist organisations, and even that could be considered a dubious and tenuous link. The term "Al Qaeda" (spelling may vary from one news source to another: clue) is a codename created by the CIA during the 1970's (When they were training the Taleban to fight the Commies) that refers to the database they kept of "international terrorist suspects". The IRA, for instance, were listed on the same Database (making them "Al Qaeda" in modern US intelligence parlance). Bin Laden never referred to himself or his organisation as "Al Qaeda", but as "The Muslim Brotherhood". Al Qaeda translates as (depending on dialect chosen) either "The Gentlemen" or "The Base" (Often used to mean Database).
There appears to be no "hierarchy" of terrorists, (for example, there is no provable link between 9/11 and the 7/7 attacks) but the Taleban is very influential in such circles as are various Saudi houses; the Bin Laden family for example. But they're allies and own quite a lot of US businesses, so we'd best not say that too loudly eh?
Makes the oft-repeated phrase "....group linked to Al Qaeda" kinda nonsensical really.
There are a lot of ignorant idiots commenting today.
No he shouldn't be shot!
But he shouldn't of disclosed any info.
I have had to sign the secrets act on more than one occasion, I can't tell you why but I can tell you that I take it very seriously even though I disagree with a few things that I have had to sign it for.
*So I now do what the government does, and leave some documents on the train.
Or a YouTube comments page?
My goodness... it brings out the nasties... Bring back the cat! Hanging's too good for 'em! Ship 'em all to an island somewhere! Yes, you're right: I grew up in the 1950s.
Seems to me that, assuming the facts fit the appearances (nobody has been tried yet) that this guy has committed a criminal act for which he can truly expect the old 15-ton weight on his head, but baying for blood is about as civilised as the US govt's treatment of the guy up to this point. Cruel and unusual? Barely civilised.
My bit of baying, although not for blood, is that the other guy should be on trial with him, no posing as a celebrity seeker of political asylum
This is a matter of military discipline. If you are a civvy you might not understand, but military discipline is particularly firm and often harsh, particularly where secrets are concerned. This is not a civilian matter where you can cry and talk about your harsh childhood; I have already posted up material showing that the Taliban have said that they will be having a word with those informants whose GPS data have been revealed. It is not up to Manning, you or anyone not in the strategic/military loop to decide on what secrets can be revealed, by definition. Practically all of the 'no harm done' waffle is mere hot air and I suspect that much if not all of it comes from spotty delinquents in their bedrooms.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
