Army Pfc. Bradley Manning

**deathgodusmc** · 03-20-11, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

So Triger, do you think nothing should happen to him since it can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt on these forums that lives were put in danger by the leaking of the information?

fixed that loop hole for you.

**triggerhappy2005** · 03-20-11, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

So Triger, do you think nothing should happen to him since it can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that lives were put in danger by the leaking of the information?

False choice in your question there. My contention is that the punishment should fit the crime. Releasing embarrassing memos is not the same as releasing classified information that can cause measurable harm to us or our allies. When I say harm I mean physical bodily harm and not bruised egos.

**deathgodusmc** · 03-20-11, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

False choice in your question there. My contention is that the punishment should fit the crime. Releasing embarrassing memos is not the same as releasing classified information that can cause measurable harm to us or our allies. When I say harm I mean physical bodily harm and not bruised egos.

Then its a false claim on your behalf. Just because no one has put anything in this thread does not mean evidence of endangering lives did not happen.

**DJ Ms. White** · 03-20-11, 07:44 PM

Trigger, it did endanger the lives of our informants in Afghanistan and most likely made it very difficult to get new contacts. So, unfortunately, it did endanger lives. They might not be US lives, but they're allies of ours.

**CivilWars** · 03-20-11, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

False choice in your question there. My contention is that the punishment should fit the crime. Releasing embarrassing memos is not the same as releasing classified information that can cause measurable harm to us or our allies. When I say harm I mean physical bodily harm and not bruised egos.

So in your opinion what is the punishment for leaking what he has? Also, who gets to decide what information is important and what isn't? It seems to me his employer already decided that by labeling it classified or top secret. If he disagrees so be it, but he still signed papers saying what he would and wouldn't do with said information, so once again what is included in the papers is irrelevant.

Sent from Uranus using Tapatalk

**~~hawgballs~~** · 03-20-11, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

Trigger, it did endanger the lives of our informants in Afghanistan and most likely made it very difficult to get new contacts. So, unfortunately, it did endanger lives. They might not be US lives, but they're allies of ours.

Fair enough then...... This kid ought to get the same sentence as Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Dick Armitage and everybody else involved in Plamegate...

**triggerhappy2005** · 03-21-11, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

Trigger, it did endanger the lives of our informants in Afghanistan and most likely made it very difficult to get new contacts. So, unfortunately, it did endanger lives. They might not be US lives, but they're allies of ours.

Any proof of that? Did any of the documents released contain the names or whereabouts of said informants?

Wikileaks claimed that they vetted every single document released. The documents were made public so just show a single document with an informants name mentioned and I'll jump on the bandwagon too.

Afghan War documents leak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On 11 August, a spokesman for the Pentagon told the Washington Post that "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents",[63] although the spokesman asserted "there is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field." On 17 August, the Associated Press reported that "so far there is no evidence that any Afghans named in the leaked documents as defectors or informants from the Taliban insurgency have been harmed in retaliation."[64]
In October, the Pentagon concluded that the leak "did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods", and that furthermore "there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak."[65] Both Wikileaks and Greenwald pointed to this report as clear evidence that the danger caused by the leak had been vastly overstated.[66][67]

Also from the leaks

The documents revealed that Department of Defense private contractor employees hired local male child prostitutes.[70]

Umm yeah, definitely the kind of sensitive info we need to keep secret.

**DJ Ms. White** · 03-21-11, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Fair enough then...... This kid ought to get the same sentence as Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Dick Armitage and everybody else involved in Plamegate...

I can agree with that.

And trigger, I'm just going by what I've read on various news sites. I haven't really had the time to sift through Wikileaks yet.

**Scrum** · 03-21-11, 02:59 PM

Ugh, I typed up a response with evidence of what the docs contained and for some reason my IE crashed and I lost it all grrr...

Basically I read through some of the leaked docs/cables by Manning posted on Wikileaks. Much of it is short cables like the one below....

At 1040z an element from TF 2 Fury was moving south along RTE OHIO to the Qarabagh. At VB 1298 6659 the element spotted a burned jingle truck carrying US equipment blocking the southbound road. The element stopped to investigate and discovered approx. 20 shell casings from an AK-47. While talking to the locals, they pointed out a compound that TB members visit while traveling in the area.

Other cables included sensative material including local Afgan informants supporitng the US was included...

Afghan informants' lives at risk from documents posted on WikiLeaks | The Australian

Anyone leakinng classified documents or information that could harm others such as listed above should be kept in solitary confinement as long as their is enough evidence to indicate such actions, then through trial/investigation the appropirate punishment should be given out. The last thing I would want is someone leaking more information out if given the chance that could effect our or our allies security.

**deathgodusmc** · 03-21-11, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Any proof of that? Did any of the documents released contain the names or whereabouts of said informants?

Wikileaks claimed that they vetted every single document released. The documents were made public so just show a single document with an informants name mentioned and I'll jump on the bandwagon too.

Afghan War documents leak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On 11 August, a spokesman for the Pentagon told the Washington Post that "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents",[63] although the spokesman asserted "there is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field." On 17 August, the Associated Press reported that "so far there is no evidence that any Afghans named in the leaked documents as defectors or informants from the Taliban insurgency have been harmed in retaliation."[64]
In October, the Pentagon concluded that the leak "did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods", and that furthermore "there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak."[65] Both Wikileaks and Greenwald pointed to this report as clear evidence that the danger caused by the leak had been vastly overstated.[66][67]

Also from the leaks

The documents revealed that Department of Defense private contractor employees hired local male child prostitutes.[70]

Umm yeah, definitely the kind of sensitive info we need to keep secret.

What wikileaks did with the information is irrelivant. The fact is he gave them to wikileaks. That in all by itself is grounds for every charge he has against him.