Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Hero or Villain?Follow

#27 Jun 05 2013 at 6:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Kavekk wrote:
My view is that he's neither. He's just some guy.


Apparently, there's some question about that as well. I'd take issue with the word "just" though. He's a guy who directly violated his oath and his orders. I think that "just" doesn't really cover that sufficiently.

Quote:
Quote:
A crime is a crime.


Meaningless, and not just because it's a tautology.


It's meaningless that he committed a crime? Given the context of the question at hand, I'd think that would be quite meaningful.

Quote:
Quote:
Last I checked, motive was a relevant in the justice system.


Increasingly it isn't, and it depends on the offence to what degree this is true, if at all. It might be completely irrelevant. If it's been barred then presumably that's the case.


It's been barred as a defense for his actions, but not as part of his charge and/or potential sentence (one of which, at least, appears to matter in terms of motivation).

Quote:
Quote:
There are processes and protections in place for actual whistle blowers.


I'm sure those procedures will be very useful in exposing endemic structural corruption. Like a fire alarm that's on fire.


The phrase "endemic structural corruption" is a cop-out though. It's an excuse. And a lazy one at that.

Quote:
Quote:
"You have come to the wrong shop for anarchy, brother."


An anarchist goes to whatever shop they please, surely. I'm not sure why you've chosen an oath to the US government as the cardinal virtue, some deeply structuralist ethics I suppose? Pass.


It's relevant to someone standing for Court Marshal though, right? I mean, that's what we're talking about here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#28 Jun 05 2013 at 6:42 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
It's been barred as a defense for his actions, but not as part of his charge and/or potential sentence (one of which, at least, appears to matter in terms of motivation).


Am I the only one this bugs? I just don't see how a fair trial is possible in that case.

It would be one thing for the judge to order that motive was barred from being discussed due to its irrelevance to the charges at hand. But my understanding of the charge against him is that they must prove he released information with the intent of it reaching the enemy, which would lead to the maximum sentence.

But I haven't done any research to try and find out what he's actually being charged with, other than what I've heard on the news, so maybe that isn't the case.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#29 Jun 05 2013 at 6:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's relevant to someone standing for Court Marshal though, right?

Court-martial. As in "A military (martial) court".

No need to argue about it or post a snippy response, it was just bugging me.

Edited, Jun 5th 2013 7:46pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#30 Jun 05 2013 at 7:38 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 posts
Now, this right here? This right here, folk. Yes, all you folks that love to derail a thread. This right here is how you properly derail a thread into absolutely nothing, yet somehow an endless discussion.

Nitpick an irrelevant comment of gbaji's.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#31 Jun 05 2013 at 7:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's relevant to someone standing for Court Marshal though, right?

Court-martial. As in "A military (martial) court".

No need to argue about it or post a snippy response, it was just bugging me.


Lol. It was bugging me too. When I wrote that I kept looking at it thinking "that's not right", but for some reason just couldn't put my finger on what was wrong with it. Looking at it know, I'm cringing (and laughing). It's just that bad. Alma worthy really.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#32 Jun 05 2013 at 8:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
/derail off

idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
It's been barred as a defense for his actions, but not as part of his charge and/or potential sentence (one of which, at least, appears to matter in terms of motivation).


Am I the only one this bugs? I just don't see how a fair trial is possible in that case.

It would be one thing for the judge to order that motive was barred from being discussed due to its irrelevance to the charges at hand. But my understanding of the charge against him is that they must prove he released information with the intent of it reaching the enemy, which would lead to the maximum sentence.


I think it's two different types of intent. Determining that you intended to commit the crime is one thing and is relevant in terms of charge and potential sentence. Determining *why* you committed the crime may be something else entirely, and may have no relevance to the case itself (but provide a distraction). For example: Determining if I intended to shoot and kill my brother or I thought he was an intruder makes a huge difference in terms of charge and sentence. But if I did intend to shoot and kill my brother, whether I did so because he borrowed my tools without asking or because I wanted to make some broad statement about some cause isn't relevant to the trying of the case itself. But allowing me to use the case as a platform for said cause might be something a judge would want to avoid.

That's just my initial thought. I also haven't been doing any research, so I don't suppose we can rule out some evil conspiracy by the judge to prevent the public from "learning the truth".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#33 Jun 06 2013 at 5:45 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 posts
gbaji wrote:
t's just that bad. Alma worthy really.
Smiley: lol Love it.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#34 Jun 06 2013 at 6:52 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
It's possible that those are two different things, absolutely.

But I do not like the precedent of barring someone from proving otherwise. She seems to have restricted the trial to, on the prosecution's side, proving he had the intention of feeding information to the enemy (and not just the knowledge that it would occur). Disproving that, without being able to argue what his true intentions were, is far more difficult.

I mean, what can you say? "No they weren't?"

Logic doesn't work this way. The only way to prove something false with Logic is to pair it with other assumptions and prove that they aren't compatible (so that you prove it false relative to the truth of the other statement). In this case, if I was the defense, I would aim to prove that my client's intent was to expose war crimes to the American people, for the sake of a more transparent government and military, and address the ongoing issue of over-classification, in order to strengthen our nation and military effectiveness as a whole.

By proving that to be true, you would invalidate the position that you had the intent to feed information to enemy's of the US, as that would be at odds with your goal of making the construct more powerful and reliable. You'd likely accept that you understood it to be a risk you were taking, but that's not intent.

Intent isn't just the understanding that it could, or likely would, happen. It's the desire that it happens - it's a motivator for your action.

How can you possibly defend yourself against that accusation if you can't offer any evidence to disprove it?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#35 Jun 06 2013 at 7:20 AM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Intent isn't just the understanding that it could, or likely would, happen. It's the desire that it happens - it's a motivator for your action.
Right, but for the UCMJ Article 104 charge intent doesn't matter.
UCMJ Article 104 wrote:
“Any person who—

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.”

[...]

(6) Communicating with the enemy.

(a) Nature of the offense. No unauthorized communication, correspondence, or intercourse with the enemy is permissible. The intent, content, and method of the communication, correspondence, or intercourse are immaterial. No response or receipt by the enemy is required. The offense is complete the moment the communication, correspondence, or intercourse issues from the accused. The communication, correspondence, or intercourse may be conveyed directly or indirectly
Straight out of the law book. That's why neither the prosecution or the defense are focusing on intent. His defense is focusing on whether or not it was known all the information that Manning did release was classified and on his emotional state. There's also reports that his command didn't even want him in Iraq because they felt he was a danger, but higher up on the chain vetoed that decision because there wasn't enough intelligence analysts.

It doesn't really matter though, he's already sitting on twenty years just on the charges he pled guilty to and a dishonorable discharge.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#36 Jun 06 2013 at 7:56 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Wasn't he on his fourth tour?

Or am I confusing that detail with the guy who massacred those villagers?

It's getting hard to keep all these military scandals straight.

Ironically.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#37 Jun 06 2013 at 8:07 AM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
It was his first. I'm just getting more and more disappointed with this kid's chain of command the more I end up accidentally finding out.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#38 Jun 06 2013 at 8:11 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
What kind of warning signs were there, exactly? Failed psych reviews and that sort of thing?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#39 Jun 06 2013 at 8:26 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
"Broken family, chronic loneliness, homosexuality, gender confusion, rage, depression, dissociative behavior, paranoia," is the short laundry list of terms used to describe him, but both prosecution and defense can use it so it's overall a wash. Laundry list. Wash. Ha, I kill me. He shouldn't have been there, he shouldn't have been in the Army, but none of it really dismisses what he did either.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#40 Jun 06 2013 at 8:28 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Does everyone in the army have this kind of access to classified information, or did they just give it to him?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#41 Jun 06 2013 at 8:33 AM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
No, Manning was an intelligence analyst so he'd have Top Secret security clearance.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#42 Jun 06 2013 at 8:57 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
"Broken family, chronic loneliness, homosexuality, gender confusion, rage, depression, dissociative behavior, paranoia," is the short laundry list of terms used to describe him, but both prosecution and defense can use it so it's overall a wash. Laundry list. Wash. Ha, I kill me. He shouldn't have been there, he shouldn't have been in the Army, but none of it really dismisses what he did either.

Yeah. I would hope that this incident would prompt the Army to seriously reviewing their vetting procedures for granting access to classified info.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#43 Jun 06 2013 at 9:03 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
The Navy refused my sister because she has chronic depression.

Getting refused by the Navy made her even more depressed.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#44 Jun 06 2013 at 9:06 AM Rating: Decent
******
20,020 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
No, Manning was an intelligence analyst so he'd have Top Secret security clearance.


I feel so safe.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#45 Jun 06 2013 at 9:14 AM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I feel so safe.
You use what you got. It isn't like you and your impeccable moral compass and work ethic are going to join.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#46 Jun 06 2013 at 9:15 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Idk, those showers sound really enticing.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#47 Jun 06 2013 at 9:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
"Broken family, chronic loneliness, homosexuality, gender confusion, rage, depression, dissociative behavior, paranoia," is the short laundry list of terms used to describe him, but both prosecution and defense can use it so it's overall a wash. Laundry list. Wash. Ha, I kill me. He shouldn't have been there, he shouldn't have been in the Army, but none of it really dismisses what he did either.

Yeah. I would hope that this incident would prompt the Army to seriously reviewing their vetting procedures for granting access to classified info.
Mostly second-hand, but I was under the impression that they were already quite stringent. Should be an interesting story to see how/why nut-job there got his access though.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#48 Jun 06 2013 at 9:24 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Being in the Navy would have depressed her even more.

Quote:
It's meaningless that he committed a crime? Given the context of the question at hand, I'd think that would be quite meaningful.


Nah.

Quote:
The phrase "endemic structural corruption" is a cop-out though. It's an excuse. And a lazy one at that.


Is it? Seems more of a trite observation, really; if an organisation's rife with corruption, one might presume its procedures for preventing corruption are defective as a cause and a result.

Quote:
It's relevant to someone standing for Court Marshal though, right? I mean, that's what we're talking about here.


Sure, it's obvious why the military would want him on trial. Leaks of sensitive and damaging information serve as an irritant to the system. I doubt anyone much would disagree.

Quote:
It was his first. I'm just getting more and more disappointed with this kid's chain of command the more I end up accidentally finding out.


Well, you can't expect too much from them, they're in the military.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#49 Jun 06 2013 at 9:25 AM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
Not that interesting. "Lack of personnel."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#50 Jun 06 2013 at 9:27 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Elinda wrote:
Is Manning a hero for exposing the military's dirty laundry or a villain for giving up classified info that could put the country's security at risk?


What was the "dirty laundry" and what legal ways did he attempt to go about disclosing it?
#51 Jun 06 2013 at 9:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Like an overall lack, or did he have some special language skills or something?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 65 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (65)