Glenn Greenwald shares his opinions on this man.

"Compare this aggressive prosecution of Manning to the Obama administration's vigorous efforts to shield Bush-era war crimes and massive Wall Street fraud from all forms of legal accountability. Not a single perpetrator of those genuine crimes has faced court under Obama, a comparison that reflects the priorities and values of US justice"


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/30/bradley-manning-liberty-lost-america

Manning broke the law. He will be fortunate to only get life in solitary.

You want to call for others to stand trial...so be it. Manning is guilty and I have no sympathy for him.

He released classified information.
Sorry, he broke the law.
Yes, there is overclassification, but he broke the law.


I think there is too much stuff classified, but he released that information knowing what he did was wrong.
Lock him up, but not for life.

Manning broke the law and deserves jail time.

/thread

Malum Prohibitum

Yes, passing state secrets is only illegal by statute. How ridiculous are you?

...and yet still the law.

It's a weird world we live in when exposing war crimes is worse than the actual war crimes themselves. Also, when will he be standing trial? It's been over 1000 days and nothing.

Con_Alma;1396225 wrote:...and yet still the law.

Everything Hitler did was legal, right?

Trial is expected to be in June.

justincredible;1396230 wrote:Everything Hitler did was legal, right?

I highly doubt it. Should Hitler have been let go if captured?

queencitybuckeye;1396224 wrote:Yes, passing state secrets is only illegal by statute. How ridiculous are you?

I think it's fair to say reasonable minds could disagree about whether or not what he did was wrong in and of itself.

Manning should be an example for all Americans, and the only trials we should see are for Bush, Rumsfeld, Obama, Hillary, and company.

BoatShoes;1396239 wrote:I think it's fair to say reasonable minds could disagree about whether or not what he did was wrong in and of itself.

Which is not the same statement as your previous post.

Con_Alma;1396233 wrote:I highly doubt it. Should Hitler have been let go if captured?

As Chancellor did Hitler not make the laws?

Con_Alma;1396231 wrote:Trial is expected to be in June.

3 and a half years later. Sounds reasonable.

justincredible;1396245 wrote:As Chancellor did Hitler not make the laws?

I don't know. Are you suggesting he may have not broken any laws?

Con_Alma;1396251 wrote:I don't know. Are you suggesting he may have not broken any laws?

How could he break the laws if he made them?

justincredible;1396247 wrote:3 and a half years later. Sounds reasonable.

He was arraigned February of 2012.

He was initially held in July of 2012 through April of 2011 under the Prevention of Injury status.

Con_Alma;1396251 wrote:I don't know. Are you suggesting he may have not broken any laws?

Yes, that is what I am suggesting.

My point being just because something is lawful doesn't mean it's right, and vice versa.

queencitybuckeye;1396242 wrote:Which is not the same statement as your previous post.

Well, you often complain about how long my posts are and since several other posters simply wrote "He broke the law therefore he deservers jail" I could've gone into a long diatribe about how we might think of other instances when people broke the law and yet we didn't find them to be deserving of jail time or moral condemnation, etc.

Instead, I simply wrote the phrase that illustrates that some actions might be wrong simply because they're prohibited and not because they're wrong in and of themselves. And, as it happens, it seems that's how a lot of Bradley Manning supporters feel about this situation.

But then, you reply to my post and say "how unreasonable are you" an attack on me which is par for the course as it pertains to our conversations on this forum.

justincredible;1396247 wrote:3 and a half years later. Sounds reasonable.

Reasonable is subjective. Some of the delays are due to defense requests while others are based on the 100s of thousands of cables that will be potentially referred to in the court marital.

justincredible;1396260 wrote:Yes, that is what I am suggesting.

My point being just because something is lawful doesn't mean it's right, and vice versa.

No one has argues the morailty of law, certainly not I.

Con_Alma;1396266 wrote:No one has argues the morailty of law, certainly not I.

Con_Alma;1396225 wrote:...and yet still the law.

Oh.

justincredible;1396280 wrote:Oh.

Exactly. I pointed out the law being in place as opposed to the right and wrongs being focused on by those opposed to the military court's action.