Chelsea Manning Released from prison

[Charnea]

How else are you supposed to whistleblow soldiers committing crimes without revealing their identity (bearing in mind the army itself might want to suppress knowledge of crimes)? If you're going public, by definition you'll have to reveal some information about the soldiers' identity. Therefore, making specific information about war crimes public is potentially a treasonous act.

By legal combat, I mean a war fought without war crimes.

There is no such thing as a "Gentleman's war".

War crimes are war crimes man. Illegal is illegal. International law exists.

[Charnea]

And what about the hypothetical situation where only criminal soldiers were revealed?

What she did is no hypothetical scenario. She fucked up by fucking other innocents in the progress.

Who did she fuck up. Where is the evidence of harm being done.

[Eastfield Lodge]

And what about the hypothetical situation where only criminal soldiers were revealed?

What she did is no hypothetical scenario. She fucked up by fucking other innocents in the progress.

Answer the question.

How else are you supposed to whistleblow soldiers committing crimes without revealing their identity (bearing in mind the army itself might want to suppress knowledge of crimes)? If you're going public, by definition you'll have to reveal some information about the soldiers' identity. Therefore, making specific information about war crimes public is potentially a treasonous act.

By legal combat, I mean a war fought without war crimes.

There is no such thing as a "Gentleman's war".

So you support committing war crimes then, if they're inevitable?

[Uxupox]

What she did is no hypothetical scenario. She fucked up by fucking other innocents in the progress.

Answer the question.

There is no such thing as a "Gentleman's war".

So you support committing war crimes then, if they're inevitable?

By stating a fact it means I support criminality? The hell.

[Charnea]

By stating a fact it means I support criminality? The hell.

This guy seems to have a pattern going. He expresses an opinion, and then whines that he's being straw-manned when you press him on it. Perhaps just not engage him anymore?

[The River Brazos]

Even though this 'person' or 'it' is free manning shouldn't receive any benefits monetary or healthcare from the government at all. when I heard the news I described the situation as a piece of shit. I was not happy other people such as
John Anthony Walker Jr, died in Prison
Arthur Walker, received three life sentences
John's son Michael Walker, 25 year prison term
and Robert Philip Hanssen received Life in prison

two of these men were in the military and had done the same thing as manning yet they got the book thrown at them but manning didn't its a gross miscarriage of justice that the former president thought it was okay to steal and give secrets but not get punished accordingly. I hope the commutation can be overturned and put manning back in jail for life where spies like him belong.

[Eastfield Lodge]

Answer the question.
So you support committing war crimes then, if they're inevitable?

By stating a fact it means I support criminality? The hell.

You're saying that war crimes are inevitable, and that you'd support prosecuting those who publicly expose war crimes for treason, with the death penalty. Forgive me for making the logical leap to supporting war crimes.

[Uxupox]

By stating a fact it means I support criminality? The hell.

You're saying that war crimes are inevitable, and that you'd support prosecuting those who publicly expose war crimes for treason, with the death penalty. Forgive me for making the logical leap to supporting war crimes.

It's not a logical leap at all because I never stated that I supported war crimes.

Find me where I said I support the death penalty for treason.

[Gig em Aggies]

You're saying that war crimes are inevitable, and that you'd support prosecuting those who publicly expose war crimes for treason, with the death penalty. Forgive me for making the logical leap to supporting war crimes.

It's not a logical leap at all because I never stated that I supported war crimes.

Find me where I said I support the death penalty for treason.

I'm assuming this about you after reading your statements: That you support the prosecution of soldiers who break laws within a combat zone like committing a war crime but you would also support prosecuting soldiers exposing the other soldiers if their leaks reveal classified information that doesn't pertain to the war crime and the suspected soldier? is that kind of what your saying

[Eastfield Lodge]

You're saying that war crimes are inevitable, and that you'd support prosecuting those who publicly expose war crimes for treason, with the death penalty. Forgive me for making the logical leap to supporting war crimes.

It's not a logical leap at all because I never stated that I supported war crimes.

Find me where I said I support the death penalty for treason.

My apologies, mixing you up with another poster re: death penalty.

If you'd stated you supported war crimes, that wouldn't be a logical leap, it'd just be stating fact. A logical leap is an assumption.
Also, you haven't rebutted the rest of the claim, so I'll go ahead and assume that it's true.

[Eastfield Lodge]

It's not a logical leap at all because I never stated that I supported war crimes.

Find me where I said I support the death penalty for treason.

I'm assuming this about you after reading your statements: That you support the prosecution of soldiers who break laws within a combat zone like committing a war crime but you would also support prosecuting soldiers exposing the other soldiers if their leaks reveal classified information that doesn't pertain to the war crime and the suspected soldier? is that kind of what your saying

From what I've read, the whistleblower would be prosecuted even if the information was purely about specific war crimes (as in, revealing info about particular criminal soldiers).

[Uxupox]

It's not a logical leap at all because I never stated that I supported war crimes.

Find me where I said I support the death penalty for treason.

My apologies, mixing you up with another poster re: death penalty.

If you'd stated you supported war crimes, that wouldn't be a logical leap, it'd just be stating fact. A logical leap is an assumption.
Also, you haven't rebutted the rest of the claim, so I'll go ahead and assume that it's true.

Since when does not rebuking means automatically for it.

[Eastfield Lodge]

My apologies, mixing you up with another poster re: death penalty.

If you'd stated you supported war crimes, that wouldn't be a logical leap, it'd just be stating fact. A logical leap is an assumption.
Also, you haven't rebutted the rest of the claim, so I'll go ahead and assume that it's true.

Since when does not rebuking means automatically for it.

True, it doesn't automatically, but the number of times you've failed to claim otherwise makes it pretty suggestive, to say the least.

[Datlofff]

Yes but the president can declassify anything he wants

So he has an excuse to commit treason, in a sense.

Great.

I don't believe the man at the top of our government can commit treason against our government

[Eastfield Lodge]

EDIT: Ignore

[Charnea]

So he has an excuse to commit treason, in a sense.

Great.

I don't believe the man at the top of our government can commit treason against our government

Well, he can commit treason, but not by leaking information. If he leaks it, it automatically becomes declassified.

[Imperializt Russia]

7 years is not a slap on the wrist.

It is when servicemen lives are at possible risk.

A risk that you admit cannot even be quantified or have occurred.

She got 7 years for putting them at risk. Had they come to serious harm, then we'd be talking about 35 years, of course.

[Charnea]

I don't believe the man at the top of our government can commit treason against our government

Legally, he can't.
Morally/ethically/practically, he definitely can.

He can though. For example, if Reagan was proven legally to have had a hand in the Iran-Contra thing, he would have been guilty of high treason

[Gig em Aggies]

I don't believe the man at the top of our government can commit treason against our government

Well, he can commit treason, but not by leaking information. If he leaks it, it automatically becomes declassified.

here's something I found interesting off of the NY Times

WASHINGTON — The news that President Trump disclosed highly classified information about the Islamic State during a meeting with Russian officials, jeopardizing an ally’s intelligence source, has raised interest in legal issues surrounding disclosures of classified information.

Who sets the rules for declassifications or disclosures?


The classification system is regulated by executive orders, which presidents periodically update and replace. The current version is Executive Order 13526, which President Barack Obama signed in late 2009. Under its rules, “original classification authorities” — like the heads of various departments and agencies — can normally classify and declassify information “owned” by their organizations. They can then authorize its disclosure to someone who has the proper security clearance and is deemed to need to know it. But the president oversees all the agencies and can also directly exercise his powers.

Did Mr. Trump have legal authority to disclose the information?

Yes. The designation of information as a restricted national security secret is considered part of the president’s constitutional powers as commander in chief. Because the classified information system was not established and is not regulated by congressional statutes, Mr. Trump has the power to declassify or disclose anything he wants.

“The classification system is not based on a law,” said Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy specialist with the Federation of American Scientists. “It is an expression of presidential authority, and that means that the president and his designees decide what is classified, and they have the essentially unlimited authority to declassify at will. The president defines the terms of the security clearance system and the parameters that determine who may be given access to classified information.”

Did Mr. Trump’s disclosure declassify the information?

Apparently not. Notably, although White House officials put out statements late on Monday playing down any problem with what he told the Russians, the administration also implored Washington Post reporters not to publish the details lest their dissemination damage national security.

What would happen if someone else did this?

Such an official could lose his or her security clearance and job. He or she could also be prosecuted under the Espionage Act, which makes it a felony punishable by 10 years in prison to disclose information to someone not authorized to receive defense-related secrets that could hurt the United States or aid another country. In recent years, the government has frequently used that statute to prosecute people who leak information to the public.

[Charnea]

Well, he can commit treason, but not by leaking information. If he leaks it, it automatically becomes declassified.

-snip-

That actually answers a lot of questions I had, thank you

[Salandriagado]

Not really, though.

Eh, she provided classified information to a foreign organization whose leader is extremely anti-establishment and has a hate-boner against the US.

That's pretty much treason.

Yeah, but so did the fucking President.

[Jamzmania]

What crimes were exposed?

Killing unarmed civilians is legal now?

I'm merely asking what crimes were supposedly revealed by Manning. I would appreciate some sources as well, if you or someone else may be so kind, so that I may educate myself.

[Charnea]

Killing unarmed civilians is legal now?

I'm merely asking what crimes were supposedly revealed by Manning. I would appreciate some sources as well, if you or someone else may be so kind, so that I may educate myself.

Hit up WikiLeaks. There's also video on youtube, footage from the drone that shows people killing some alleged terrorists (they turned out to be civilians) and then doubling back and killing the first responders with the drone. In the leaks, there is evidence that the drone operators killed children and said they killed a "fun sized terrorist"

Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_ ... ne_strikes

Basically, the long and short of it is the US has been killing a massive amount of bystanders in drone strikes, and the Manning leaks were all about the callous disregard for civilians by the operators involved. And, by the way, what was done does constitute war crimes.

[Gig em Aggies]

Eh, she provided classified information to a foreign organization whose leader is extremely anti-establishment and has a hate-boner against the US.

That's pretty much treason.

Yeah, but so did the fucking President.

but you don't know that until Congress investigates it. you cant always believe the media. when they say classified info was leaked take it with a grain of salt. plus if you look at most recent post pulled from the new York times it will give you a better understanding

[Jamzmania]

I'm merely asking what crimes were supposedly revealed by Manning. I would appreciate some sources as well, if you or someone else may be so kind, so that I may educate myself.

Hit up WikiLeaks. There's also video on youtube, footage from the drone that shows people killing some alleged terrorists (they turned out to be civilians) and then doubling back and killing the first responders with the drone. In the leaks, there is evidence that the drone operators killed children and said they killed a "fun sized terrorist"

Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_ ... ne_strikes

Basically, the long and short of it is the US has been killing a massive amount of bystanders in drone strikes, and the Manning leaks were all about the callous disregard for civilians by the operators involved. And, by the way, what was done does constitute war crimes.

If this was indeed what was leaked, then I'm glad it was leaked, but from my understanding Manning did not take proper precautions in censoring what he leaked, thus putting national security at risk.