Shady Posted August 23, 2013 Report Share Posted August 23, 2013 The thread title really needs to be changed to Chelsea Manning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted August 23, 2013 Report Share Posted August 23, 2013 In the land of the brave and the home of the free, Manning learned the hard way that you sometimes have to choose one or the other: brave or free. Unfortunately for him, he chose brave. It's truly sickening that he's spending the better part of his remaining life in jail while the war criminals he's exposed walk free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted August 23, 2013 Report Share Posted August 23, 2013 Oh, and to everyone who's yucking it up over his impending sex change, grow up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted August 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2013 The thread title really needs to be changed to Chelsea Manning. How about female form of bradley? Brenda? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 23, 2013 Report Share Posted August 23, 2013 In the land of the brave and the home of the free, Manning learned the hard way that you sometimes have to choose one or the other: brave or free. Unfortunately for him, he chose brave. It's truly sickening that he's spending the better part of his remaining life in jail while the war criminals he's exposed walk free. His so-called braveness had nothing to do with freedom. It was idiocy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 23, 2013 Report Share Posted August 23, 2013 How about female form of bradley? Brenda? That would work better, but apparently he wants....er...she wants to be known as Chelsea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 23, 2013 Report Share Posted August 23, 2013 (edited) He is known as Chelsea. At least she is, currently, on Wikipedia. Not allowed to change it, either. I think anyone who wants to be named after an English Premier League club wants their head examined. A London one, especially. Edited August 23, 2013 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 23, 2013 Report Share Posted August 23, 2013 Oh, and to everyone who's yucking it up over his impending sex change, grow up. You think a US soldier who gives 700,000 secret US documents to a foreign website should serve no jail time, and you're telling others to grow up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted August 23, 2013 Report Share Posted August 23, 2013 You think a US soldier who gives 700,000 secret US documents to a foreign website should serve no jail time, and you're telling others to grow up? That depends entirely on your perspective. If you are an authoritarian state power sycophant at heart, then obviously you will want this guy to rot in jail. But if you believe in a free and open society than you will have a different take. All mannings leak did was provide insight into what was really going on in Iraq and afghanisan, and into the embarassing lack of professionalism by state dept. diplomats. The American public has to pick up the tab for all this idiocy, so from that standpoint he did people a favor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 23, 2013 Report Share Posted August 23, 2013 That depends entirely on your perspective. If you are an authoritarian state power sycophant at heart, then obviously you will want this guy to rot in jail. But if you believe in a free and open society than you will have a different take. All mannings leak did was provide insight into what was really going on in Iraq and afghanisan, and into the embarassing lack of professionalism by state dept. diplomats. The American public has to pick up the tab for all this idiocy, so from that standpoint he did people a favor. Rubbish! If he'd found evidence of war crimes, taken it upstairs, then decided to blow the whistle on it because nothing was being done, I would agree with you. But he also gave thousands of unread secret documents to some weasel half way around the planet without a clue what was on them. He's a pratt, and he deserves to go to jail. 35 years might be a bit excessive, but the consensus seems be he'll be out in less than ten. Should consider herself lucky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted August 23, 2013 Report Share Posted August 23, 2013 You think a US soldier who gives 700,000 secret US documents to a foreign website should serve no jail time, and you're telling others to grow up? I think that, unlike the war criminals he exposed, there is no evidence that Bradley harmed anyone with his actions. Unless you count embarrassment and damage to reputation caused by exposing the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 23, 2013 Report Share Posted August 23, 2013 I think that, unlike the war criminals he exposed, there is no evidence that Bradley harmed anyone with his actions. Unless you count embarrassment and damage to reputation caused by exposing the truth. If you make it home from the pub without hitting anyone, there's no evidence that your drunk driving harmed anyone either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted August 23, 2013 Report Share Posted August 23, 2013 His so-called braveness had nothing to do with freedom. It was idiocy. Why? Because people had their noses rubbed into some inconvenient truths? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted August 23, 2013 Report Share Posted August 23, 2013 Why? Because people had their noses rubbed into some inconvenient truths? And that gets to the crux of this issue... which is massive over classification. Most of this information was classified not because it disclose troop movements to the enemy or jeapordize security by giving the enemy an advantage. It was classified to prevent the political and military leaders from being embarassed and having to answer hard questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted August 23, 2013 Report Share Posted August 23, 2013 (edited) You think a US soldier who gives 700,000 secret US documents to a foreign website should serve no jail time, and you're telling others to grow up? When the directors of a public company defraud the shareholders, the whistle-blower is usually rewarded. But then again, that's because it's domestic law that's broken and the victims are ordinary citizens. Of course, there should be a different set of rules for those who expose international crimes where the victims are probably terrorists anyway. Edited August 23, 2013 by BC_chick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 23, 2013 Report Share Posted August 23, 2013 (edited) When the directors of a public company defraud the shareholders, the whistle-blower is usually rewarded. But then again, that's because it's domestic law that's broken and the victims are ordinary citizens. Of course, there should be a different set of rules for those who expose international crimes where the victims are probably terrorists anyway. Yes, like I said, he should have stuck to exposing international crimes. I would have fully supported her. Edited August 23, 2013 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 23, 2013 Report Share Posted August 23, 2013 (edited) Deleted - double post Edited August 23, 2013 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted August 23, 2013 Report Share Posted August 23, 2013 If you make it home from the pub without hitting anyone, there's no evidence that your drunk driving harmed anyone either. And when was the last time someone got 35 years in prison for impaired driving where nobody was hurt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted August 23, 2013 Report Share Posted August 23, 2013 When the directors of a public company defraud the shareholders, the whistle-blower is usually rewarded. But then again, that's because it's domestic law that's broken and the victims are ordinary citizens. Of course, there should be a different set of rules for those who expose international crimes where the victims are probably terrorists anyway. Of course. We know that all of those poor people in Iraq and Afghanistan are all terrorists or wannabe terrorists. Why should we wait for them to actually try something before we kill them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted August 23, 2013 Report Share Posted August 23, 2013 Yes, like I said, he should have stuck to exposing international crimes. I would have fully supported her. And that's exactly what happened. International crimes were exposed. And some people got embarrassed who don't like to be embarrassed. And as a result, Bradley's in prison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 23, 2013 Report Share Posted August 23, 2013 And when was the last time someone got 35 years in prison for impaired driving where nobody was hurt? That's not relevant to the point I was making. Not even a little. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 23, 2013 Report Share Posted August 23, 2013 And that's exactly what happened. International crimes were exposed. And some people got embarrassed who don't like to be embarrassed. And as a result, Bradley's in prison. No, he's in prison because she deserves to be. There is a duty to expose war crimes, and if he had just done that she would not be in prison. Why do you suppose he gave away thousands of documents as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted August 23, 2013 Report Share Posted August 23, 2013 Of course. We know that all of those poor people in Iraq and Afghanistan are all terrorists or wannabe terrorists. Why should we wait for them to actually try something before we kill them? They're not just terrorists they're brown terrorists and they speak funny. Anyone who can't grasp the difference between exposing domestic crimes and crimes against brown terrorists who speak funny, probably thinks this little gender dysphoria is natural too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted August 23, 2013 Report Share Posted August 23, 2013 No, he's in prison because she deserves to be. There is a duty to expose war crimes, and if he had just done that she would not be in prison.Why do you suppose he gave away thousands of documents as well? An accountant in a public company uncovers fraud and bring it to light. In doing so she also compromised the privacy of some of the employess. She would still be awarded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted August 23, 2013 Report Share Posted August 23, 2013 Rubbish! If he'd found evidence of war crimes, taken it upstairs, then decided to blow the whistle on it because nothing was being done, I would agree with you. But he also gave thousands of unread secret documents to some weasel half way around the planet without a clue what was on them. He's a pratt, and he deserves to go to jail. 35 years might be a bit excessive, but the consensus seems be he'll be out in less than ten. Should consider herself lucky. Oh this bull about going through the proper channels again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.