Bradley Manning, American hero

[Binn Beal]

The US military are prosecuting Bradley Manning for leaking a video of an attack on civilians by US helicopter gunships in Iraq.

Over seven million people have now seen this video on YouTube. It is sickening but revealing of how the US military regards the people of Iraq.

This is the link to the BBC news story with a further link to the actual video.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10529110.stm

If they succeed in silencing those brave enough to leak their crimes, what further atrocities they will get away with?

[gli]

I've seen the clip. I was entranced more by the dialogue of those in the helicopter than the images. 'Lock and load, press joystick and watch people bleed and things explode. Gidyee up.'

Manning may be a hero, but he's going to pay a terrible price. When the state apparatus has you, your life and those of your family becomes hell. There's nothing more souless than a state apparatus.

[The Field Marshal]

Classic dilemma.

Question:How do you keep a secret.?

An army must have confidence that its secrets are safe otherwise it cannot operate effectively.

Answer:Where clear and deliberate atrocities have occurred then where proved the whistleblowers will be exonerated.

Simple.

If a deliberate atrocity occurred Bradley may be hero.
If not then definitely he is a villain.

BTW callous brutal talk by soldiers is not evidence of deliberate murder.

Mistaken identity may be a valid defence for the shootings.

Bradley ideally should have gone to his superiors first.

---------------------

BTW[Rash judgements abound on this thread]

--------------------

[Binn Beal]

Yeah, I found the chatter betweed the shooter and the pilot very disturbing. I had no difficulty seeing that these were clearly non-militants, especially the van with the kids who stopped to help. Truly awful.

I think the US is shooting itself in the other foot by prosecuting. The tape is now in the public domain and will get even more viewers. And what about the soldiers name. Could you make up a better name? Isn't Bradley an armoured vehicle?

Does anyone know of a website where this guy can be defended?

[gli]

Morality/ethics doesn't have a heirarchy of command. It is the imperative of the individual given one's understanding of the circumstance and the inherent justness one feels about a situation or dilemma. One might face a moral dilemma and need to discuss it in a broader community, but where there is no dilemma, such as is the case here imo, then Bradley did the human thing. He exposed an atrocity.

The atrocity wasn't a secret. Plenty of locals knew about it.

The only secret, which is not a secret but complicity, is that the US army and its hierarchy don't want us mere civvies to know what is done in the name of our consumer societies. That's an ethical call by every individual who reaps the rewards of military action that supports our peculiar system of society.

The old film quote always come up in this context (slightly altered): The truth. We can't handle the truth.

[The Field Marshal]

Yeah, I found the chatter betweed the shooter and the pilot very disturbing. I had no difficulty seeing that these were clearly non-militants, especially the van with the kids who stopped to help. Truly awful.

I think the US is shooting itself in the other foot by prosecuting. The tape is now in the public domain and will get even more viewers. And what about the soldiers name. Could you make up a better name? Isn't Bradley an armoured vehicle?

Does anyone know of a website where this guy can be defended?

Why should this guy not be prosecuted.?
Soldiers cannot go around leaking information like that.
[Recently an Irish naval sailor was courtmartialled for telling his girlfriend about ship movements].


Soldiers who carelessly leak damaging information like that should be dealt with severely.
[ yes it is damaging but under wartime conditions surely an understandable error].


Re the video.Shocking, sad , but thats war for you.

The language of the soldiers is brutal callous and naturally they wish to distance themselves from what they are doing ie killing.
They would not be human if they did,nt]
[That Wharhol lookalike on wikileaks is clueless.]


The rules of engagement were followed and it was a case of mistaken identity:ie a camera tripod was understandably confused with a weapon at distance.
Tragic but not the deliberate murder of unarmed civilians.

...

[The Field Marshal]

Morality/ethics doesn't have a heirarchy of command. It is the imperative of the individual given one's understanding of the circumstance and the inherent justness one feels about a situation or dilemma. One might face a moral dilemma and need to discuss it in a broader community, but where there is no dilemma, such as is the case here imo, then Bradley did the human thing. He exposed an atrocity.

The atrocity wasn't a secret. Plenty of locals knew about it.

The only secret, which is not a secret but complicity, is that the US army and its hierarchy don't want us mere civvies to know what is done in the name of our consumer societies. That's an ethical call by every individual who reaps the rewards of military action that supports our peculiar system of society.

The old film quote always come up in this context (slightly altered): The truth. We can't handle the truth.

What atrocity?
The shooters followed the rules of engagement.
The incident was a tragic mistake in that a camera tripod was mistaken for a weapon at distance.

Get a grip man.

Bradleys actions were wrong by damaging his army on the basis of
[1] wrongfully breaking rules of confidentiality
[2] giving propaganda ammunition to the enemy
[3] misreading what happened on the video.

How you can stand up for this rat soldier beats me.

[Binn Beal]

Could you not see the that the van with the children was only stopping to help? I could.

[gli]

Who make the rules (of engagement), determines the ethics? How convenient.

I take bradley as a person first, as a soldier second. Bradley did his duty as a human being. This trumps so-called rules of engagement any day.

[The Field Marshal]

Could you not see the that the van with the children was only stopping to help? I could.

You have no way of knowing for sure that they were stopping to help.

Its not clear its stopping to help [thats just your interpretation] and its not possible either to see whats inside the van.
[their could have been an anti aircraft missile launcher for all the shooter knew]

As far as the shooters were concerned the van could have been hostile.

They were engaged in an action to take out what they genuinely believed to be a group of armed combatents.

The actions of the van driver were suicidal and grossly negligent in the situation by driving in with a helicopter hovering overhead that had already opened fire.

Foolishness & Madness of the highest order.
Whose mad decision was that might I ask?
More lives were needlessly lost because of that.

[The Field Marshal]

Who make the rules (of engagement), determines the ethics? How convenient.

I take bradley as a person first, as a soldier second. Bradley did his duty as a human being. This trumps so-called rules of engagement any day.

So in your book its ok for soldiers to endanger their comrades by flouting sensible regulations ,giving bad example and comforting the enemy.

Also in your book rules of engagement dont seem to matter:rolleyes:

Bradley failed as a human being & and as a soldier by betraying his employer and his comrades and by endangering their lives.


You clearly have some other agenda since the US army is not now permitted an honest mistake.

[Sam Lord]

You have no way of knowing for sure that they were stopping to help.

Its not clear its stopping to help [thats just your interpretation] and its not possible either to see whats inside the van.
[their could have been an anti aircraft missile launcher for all the shooter knew]

As far as the shooters were concerned the van could have been hostile.



By this logic any van in Afghanistan is fair game. They could all contain missile launchers for all anyone knows.

In fact, any woman in a Burka could be shot as she could have a gun underneath for all anyone knew.

[The Field Marshal]

By this logic any van in Afghanistan is fair game. They could all contain missile launchers for all anyone knows.

In fact, any woman in a Burka could be shot as she could have a gun underneath for all anyone knew.

Dont speak to me of logic.
You have not the slightest idea what that word means.

We are discussing a specific video of a van rapidly entering a one-sided firefight shootout area with a helicopter overhead which had already opened fire on what the shooter thought reasonably but mistakenly were armed combatents.
It was reasonable and logical for the shooter to suspect that what might be in the van was hostile and to shoot it up in that specific situation.

Clearly you Sam Lord are not following any logic at all with your provocative and ill thought out comments.

Another poster with an agenda.:rolleyes:

[Sam Lord]

Dont speak to me of logic.
You have not the slightest idea what that word means.

We are discussing a specific video of a van rapidly entering a firefight shootout area

Well Idi, if you saw a fiefight taking place you saw more than anyone else watching the video did.

Hallucinating again or just plain lying to support your morally bankrupt position?

[The Field Marshal]

Well Idi, if you saw a fiefight taking place you saw more than anyone else watching the video did.

A one sided firefight is what I mean with firing from the helicopter only.
I am not and never have claimed that the US were fired on. Had you been following the thread you would have understood that but clearly following threads is not your baby



Hallucinating again or just plain lying to support your morally bankrupt position?

Yawn.
You have been thrashed and now in hyena mode you scream abuse.

[C. Flower]

The US have no business being there. Once they are there they are going to kill people. That's what they're there for.

This video doesn't surprise me in any way. It's dreadful, frustrating and horrific. But there's film on the internet from Gaza makes it look like a picnic.

I find the hyping of this video on the internet a little odd. Perhaps it's caught the imagination of the US public in some way because of the technology and the gung ho talk.

The My Lai murders were "leaked" and ended in prosecutions. This wasn't a My Lai massacre but it looks to me to have been reckless disregard of the possibility that people were unarmed civilians. The guy who leaked it deserves full credit all the more so in that it is mundane as well as brutal. But I don't know enough about rules of engagement to know which side of them it is on.

The bottom line to me is that the US should not be there at all.

[Sam Lord]

A one sided firefight is what I mean with firing from the helicopter only.


A one sided firefight ...:):):)

[Sam Lord]

NEWS HEADLINE

Field Marshal beats himself up in one sided fistfight.

[Binn Beal]

I suspect that the reason the viewing figures are so high is because the whistle-blower has been charged. And maybe the US public are beginning to see through the jingoism that they are fed from their news media.

[C. Flower]

22 additional charges, including a capital charge, have been brought against Bradley Manning.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/mann-m03.shtml

[TotalMayhem]

I came across this interesting article:

Inside the U.S. Military's Judicial System: Death Row at the "Castle" (http://www.refusingtokill.net/USGulfWar2/DeathRowinmilitary.htm)

Not exactly related but in the light of the charges against Manning and the possible punishment I might as well post it here.

[Kev Bar]

Why should this guy not be prosecuted.?
Soldiers cannot go around leaking information like that.
[Recently an Irish naval sailor was courtmartialled for telling his girlfriend about ship movements].


Soldiers who carelessly leak damaging information like that should be dealt with severely.
[ yes it is damaging but under wartime conditions surely an understandable error].


Re the video.Shocking, sad , but thats war for you.

The language of the soldiers is brutal callous and naturally they wish to distance themselves from what they are doing ie killing.
They would not be human if they did,nt]
[That Wharhol lookalike on wikileaks is clueless.]


The rules of engagement were followed and it was a case of mistaken identity:ie a camera tripod was understandably confused with a weapon at distance.
Tragic but not the deliberate murder of unarmed civilians.

...

Assange et al rightly saw this as a publicity vehicle for the leaks.
That's the name of the game.
Manning's had many other hundreds of thousands of moral quandries.
When faced with a challenge of such a scale, it's petty to state SOP.

Assange's decision to title the footag the 'the deliberate murder of unarmed civilians.' is a toally different debate.

Assange may be the media genius.
Bradley is the true hero

[Risen Lion]

The capital charge against Manning for "aiding the enemy" is similar to Richard Nixon's treatment of Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971. The story of Ellsberg, who contributed to a top-secret study of classified documents on the US conduct of the Vietnam War, and decided to leak the information after he had 'an epiphany', is fascinating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg. But Nixon 'merely' tried to discredit him by seeking 'evidence' that he was insane; Bradley faces the threat of execution - under the Obama administration!

[TotalMayhem]

The capital charge against Manning for "aiding the enemy" is similar to Richard Nixon's treatment of Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971.

Not quite, Daniel Ellsberg was in the employ of a private company (Rand Corp.), Bradley Manning has sworn an oath of allegiance.

[Kev Bar]

The capital charge against Manning for "aiding the enemy" is similar to Richard Nixon's treatment of Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971. The story of Ellsberg, who contributed to a top-secret study of classified documents on the US conduct of the Vietnam War, and decided to leak the information after he had 'an epiphany', is fascinating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg. But Nixon 'merely' tried to discredit him by seeking 'evidence' that he was insane; Bradley faces the threat of execution - under the Obama administration!

It's wild.

@TM

I think Mr Ellsberg was prompted by illegal bombing and governmental lies n deceit which were the backdrop to unjust, dumb and counter-productive policy.

To 'criticise'-not saying you are- Mr Manning on the oath is to give credence to the "I was only following orders' cop-out.

[C. Flower]

Up in Military Court today. Aged 23. Good luck to him.

[Holly]

They will throw the book at him.
A society is only as sick as its secrets and Bradley Manning is despised by the American warmongers because he is accused of letting the cat out of the bag.

[Griska]

There was a documentary on recently about Wikileaks.

The German guy (can't remember his name) who worked with Assange wanted to hold off on further revelations when he learned Manning was in sh1t.
Assange wouldn't hear of it.

Manning was duped by the hacker who grassed him up, and was extremely stupid to divulge what he did to him in an exchange.
However, he did the world a service.

I wonder if the notion of committing a crime in order to prevent a larger crime is recognised in the U.S.
I doubt it in this case. I fear for the guy's life.

[Count Bobulescu]

The crime he is accused of, technically carries a potential death penalty, but prosecutors have said they will not seek the death penalty, but that too could change. This preliminary hearing is scheduled to last five days, but based on the speed of proceedings on the first day, it could go all the way to Christmas.

Here’s a brief NPR discussion and two pieces from the Newshour. For unknown reasons the individual NPR segment wouldn’t load but you can find it by scrolling here.

http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=2

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec11/wikileaks1_12-16.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec11/wikileaks2_12-16.html

[Count Bobulescu]

The Bradley Manning pre trial hearing has concluded.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/prosecutors-say-manning-and-assange-collaborated-in-stealing-secret-documents/2011/12/22/gIQARwAXCP_story.html?hpid=z5


Manning began his campaign to help WikiLeaks, Fein said, within two weeks of arriving in Baghdad. Over a six-month period he “indiscriminately and systematically harvested over 700,000 documents’’ from the secret-level classified network.
He did so, Fein said, using as a guiding light WikiLeaks’ list of “Most Wanted Leaks,” which had been published on the Internet.
Prosecutors said the chat logs between Manning and Assange came from Manning’s personal computer, which a forensic examiner testified this week were authentic. They show an interlocutor whose user name, prosecutors said, is an alias for Assange.

In a March 8, 2010, chat, Manning asked Assange for help in cracking a password so he could log onto the classified computer anonymously, Fein said.
“Any good at IM-Hash cracking?” Manning asks.
“Yes,” is the reply. “We have rainbow tables for IM,” the interlocutor says, citing a tool that can be used to decipher passwords.

On March 15, prosecutors said, WikiLeaks published another document that Manning provided, a classified 2008 Army counterintelligence report that discussed the potential for leaks of material to WikiLeaks that could result in an advantage to foreign enemies.
Three days later, prosecutors said, Manning told Assange in a chat that a New York Times article cited an Army spokesman “confirming the authenticity” of the report.
Assange allegedly asked: “Yes?”
Manning replied: “Hilarious.”

Manning transfered classified information “knowing” that U.S. enemies, including al-Qaeda, would have access to the information, Fein said.
If true, not good.One stat that jumps out, he apparently transferred 700,000 documents/records over a period of six months. Reading each document would require reading about 4,000 documents, (however short or long) each and every day for 180 days. Clearly, Manning did not do this. Instead, he passed information he mostly knew nothing about, to someone he didn't know. That's called stupid. They'll throw everything at him, while at the same time taking their foot off gas pedal for political reasons.

[fluffybiscuits]

The Bradley Manning pre trial hearing has concluded.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/prosecutors-say-manning-and-assange-collaborated-in-stealing-secret-documents/2011/12/22/gIQARwAXCP_story.html?hpid=z5

If true, not good.One stat that jumps out, he apparently transferred 700,000 documents/records over a period of six months. Reading each document would require reading about 4,000 documents, (however short or long) each and every day for 180 days. Clearly, Manning did not do this. Instead, he passed information he mostly knew nothing about, to someone he didn't know. That's called stupid. They'll throw everything at him, while at the same time taking their foot off gas pedal for political reasons.

Im of the opposite opinion. He gave information that should be in the public domain into the public domain. While he may have known the risks associated with it (that was stupid) what he did was very noble. He single handedly showed what the establishment is up to and what the normal man on the street should know. He is a hero of sorts. In fact Im going to start a hero of the year thread I think and make him my nomnination :)

[Dr. FIVE]

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/23/manning_to_be_charged_with_aiding_terrorists/singleton/

[Iolo]

'Welsh' hero, properly - they are putting on a play about him in his old school in Dyfed. The American army has no legitimacy because it commits warcrimes, so its members are released from obedience.

[Count Bobulescu]

Im of the opposite opinion. He gave information that should be in the public domain into the public domain. While he may have known the risks associated with it (that was stupid) what he did was very noble. He single handedly showed what the establishment is up to and what the normal man on the street should know. He is a hero of sorts. In fact Im going to start a hero of the year thread I think and make him my nomnination :)
It’s understandable that people would want to root for the little guy, against ‘The Man” especially when “The Man” is the US Gov. It’s also clear from the Salon piece that FIVE posted, that Manning was/is a “troubled” individual even before he passed the info. US Gov will try to make an example of Manning, to send a message to all the other “non-troubled” individuals out there who might be contemplating copycat activity.

I’m not defending any or all of the activity that was disclosed in the cables, but it is important that every government, US, Irish, etc. be allowed to keep some secrets. I know, I don’t like it either. We can debate how much and discuss checks and balances etc, but there’s a very good public policy reason underlying the principle of keeping some things secret. The broader taxpaying community has a legitimate interest in ensuring that those acting on their behalf, be it national government or county council, are not compromised by rogue actors such as Manning. He clearly passed information he hadn’t read and therefore couldn’t evaluate, to someone he didn’t know. That’s called signing a blank cheque.

There is a very vigorous open government FOI community in the US, and few in it are coming to Manning’s defense. They understand that what he did has likely set back the broader transparency goals of the FOI community by years. His leaks will result in untold numbers of new restrictions across all levels. I say that as someone who has successfully sued county government up and down the state level trial and appellate courts, using a county level FOI provision that was enacted in 1934, long predating the federal FOIA of 1966.

There’s a similar but unrelated debate taking place in the US this week. In an effort to develop a vaccine to combat the Asian Bird Flu virus the US government funded research that included developing a highly transmittable strain. Now the US Government is asking the peer-reviewed science publications to withhold from public view some of the details of that research, on the theory that publishing everything would provide a blueprint for bad actors. I’ve posted links in the Cyber Warfare thread.

What Manning did, may be popular in some quarters, but it wasn’t smart.

[TotalMayhem]

He is a Traitor who should be given the death penalty.

He's not been convicted yet... although the peculiarities of the US military justice system make it virtually impossible for a defendant to escape conviction. Besides, Manning is not even being charged with treason.

[Kev Bar]

He is a Traitor who should be given the death penalty.

Just some of the fallout from his despicable act.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/15/wikileaks-named-ethiopian-reporter-flees

Without even the pretence of due process?

An Cruimh come on, we do try to keep the con a little more sophisticated.

[Kev Bar]

It’s understandable that people would want to root for the little guy, against ‘The Man” especially when “The Man” is the US Gov. It’s also clear from the Salon piece that FIVE posted, that Manning was/is a “troubled” individual even before he passed the info. US Gov will try to make an example of Manning, to send a message to all the other “non-troubled” individuals out there who might be contemplating copycat activity.

I’m not defending any or all of the activity that was disclosed in the cables, but it is important that every government, US, Irish, etc. be allowed to keep some secrets. I know, I don’t like it either. We can debate how much and discuss checks and balances etc, but there’s a very good public policy reason underlying the principle of keeping some things secret. The broader taxpaying community has a legitimate interest in ensuring that those acting on their behalf, be it national government or county council, are not compromised by rogue actors such as Manning. He clearly passed information he hadn’t read and therefore couldn’t evaluate, to someone he didn’t know. That’s called signing a blank cheque.

There is a very vigorous open government FOI community in the US, and few in it are coming to Manning’s defense. They understand that what he did has likely set back the broader transparency goals of the FOI community by years. His leaks will result in untold numbers of new restrictions across all levels. I say that as someone who has successfully sued county government up and down the state level trial and appellate courts, using a county level FOI provision that was enacted in 1934, long predating the federal FOIA of 1966.

There’s a similar but unrelated debate taking place in the US this week. In an effort to develop a vaccine to combat the Asian Bird Flu virus the US government funded research that included developing a highly transmittable strain. Now the US Government is asking the peer-reviewed science publications to withhold from public view some of the details of that research, on the theory that publishing everything would provide a blueprint for bad actors. I’ve posted links in the Cyber Warfare thread.

What Manning did, may be popular in some quarters, but it wasn’t smart.

That may be the case.
And I can understand the concerns of FOI argument.
I am also concerned about Assange finally releasing the the whole file without the redactions of sources which the partner media organisations had all insisted on when the press published the cables.

However, in the fall out period of the Iraq where governments led their people to war on evidence that was fabricated or wilfully manipulated, I wonder if the threat of FOI exposure is not something that the system circumvents when necessary.
One read how Rumseld minimalised the existing chains of information and command when in power during the period in question.
So one has to ask whether the conventional transparency measures are sufficient.

And if traditional measures are insufficient, it's hard to see how there is not a role for guerrilla ones.

The national interest is a valid and potent argument except when it's not in the national interest.

A policy based on deceit is an unlikely contender for being in the national interest.

And that's before we even have the complicating issue of the first dead kids from Arkansas or Basra.

[Dr. FIVE]

Part of Manning's leak was the Apache spraying the reuters guys with bullets wasn't it?

[Kev Bar]

Part of Manning's leak was the Apache spraying the reuters guys with bullets wasn't it?

Yep

[Dr. FIVE]

One of the grimmest things I've ever seen

[Count Bobulescu]

That may be the case.
And I can understand the concerns of FOI argument.
I am also concerned about Assange finally releasing the the whole file without the redactions of sources which the partner media organisations had all insisted on when the press published the cables.

However, in the fall out period of the Iraq where governments led their people to war on evidence that was fabricated or wilfully manipulated, I wonder if the threat of FOI exposure is not something that the system circumvents when necessary.
One read how Rumseld minimalised the existing chains of information and command when in power during the period in question.
So one has to ask whether the conventional transparency measures are sufficient.

And if traditional measures are insufficient, it's hard to see how there is not a role for guerrilla ones.

The national interest is a valid and potent argument except when it's not in the national interest.

A policy based on deceit is an unlikely contender for being in the national interest.

And that's before we even have the complicating issue of the first dead kids from Arkansas or Basra.

Points noted Kev and I don’t disagree. But democracy is imperfect and messy. I think Churchill had something to say on it……..That’s why you should try to build in as many checks and balances as practically possible. But they’ll never be sufficient. Sheeet will always happen, and the mess then has to be cleaned up.

That’s why the voters response to Bush/Blair all pols etc. should be we need you guys to tighten the checks and balances to attempt to limit the possibility of a repeat. Instead, it looks like we may end up with the opposite, thanks to Bradley. US voters, European voters, are all to blame, but mostly US.

Best analogy I can think of: When you’re dancing with an elephant you don’t want your partner to step on your toes, so that you can continue to dance.

[Kev Bar]

Points noted Kev and I don’t disagree. But democracy is imperfect and messy. I think Churchill had something to say on it……..That’s why you should try to build in as many checks and balances as practically possible. But they’ll never be sufficient. Sheeet will always happen, and the mess then has to be cleaned up.

That’s why the voters response to Bush/Blair all pols etc. should be we need you guys to tighten the checks and balances to attempt to limit the possibility of a repeat. Instead, it looks like we may end up with the opposite, thanks to Bradley. US voters, European voters, are all to blame, but mostly US.

Best analogy I can think of: When you’re dancing with an elephant you don’t want your partner to step on your toes, so that you can continue to dance.

Yeah. I see the point.
But there's a built in blackmail to the logiic - 'misbehave and we'll remove what checks and balances you have' - that speaks of a power I have no time for.

[Holly]

He is a Traitor who should be given the death penalty. ...
That what Roland Freisler said about the conspirators who tried to bump off Hitler.
You have something in common with Roaring Roland, I see, Cruimh.
Found guilty before a trial.

Judge Roland Freisler - aka "Raving Roland" - YouTube

[Kev Bar]

He is a Traitor who should be given the death penalty.

Just some of the fallout from his despicable act.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/15/wikileaks-named-ethiopian-reporter-flees

Some think he should be deified not fried:
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2011/12/201112249219878560.html

Re "fallout" - some argue the fallout has been hugely beneficial and will stop many lives being lost or endangered.

[Binn Beal]

If even some US soldiers cannot kill young men and children with impunity then the 'the fallout' is worthwhile.

[Iolo]

Manning made 'public' information known to only a number equivalent to the population of Cymru/'Wales'. Obviously any 'enemy' whose agents hadn't picked up all it wanted from that buffalo-herd was doomed anyhow. Let our boy go!

[fluffybiscuits]

http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1-/10531-what-we-the-people-owe-bradley-manning.html

Excellent article offering an insight into the reasons why we do need people like Bradley Manning. Perhaps people like Cruimh can take the advice of the media in its pursuit of selling papers and pandering to the right wing agenda. Make no mistake a lot of the media in the US is in the Murdoch stable, a well known right wing stable of media. The dangers of taking such issues at face value is that we dont think for ourselves and when we are presented with an alternaitve we do one of two things. We either confuse ourselves or we refuse to acknowledge the impact of new information. Very few people think for themselves and make an informed decision....