If WikiLeaks Suspect Manning Is Legally Guilty, What Punishment?
Displaying poll results.25704 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8481 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 7777 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
Treason (Score:1, Insightful)
The penalty for treason has always been death. Get a rope boys.
Re:Treason (Score:3, Insightful)
he should be honored (Score:4, Insightful)
agreed (Score:4, Insightful)
you are probably right. military law is generally very harsh. I don't know what that guy was thinking, as a civilian you can get away with a lot more.
I think the vote was on what we think he deserves, not what he will actually get as punishment.
Re:Treason (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you have any actual evidence of that? At any rate, wouldn't that be the responsibility of the US Federal government for refusing to ask for redactions?
I take it that you've forgotten that Wikileaks asked the US for guidance on what redactions to make and that the American government refused to cooperate with that, insisting that it was all or nothing.
We're supposed to be different (Score:4, Insightful)
Those who do wrong always want secrecy. When governments do wrong, they hide behind classified documents.
Dictators say "Trust me, I know what's best." A democracy can only thrive when citizens are able to see what officials are doing.
Yes, there is a legitimate place for secrecy. But secrecy must be strictly limited, or corruption will certainly take root.
Re:"Legally" Guilty (Score:3, Insightful)
of course, it is the duty of any military person to report any and all corruption and illegal activities, it is also illegal for them to obey any and all unlawful orders, which include the obfuscation or concealment of any illegal activities. (yeah, it's right there in the U.C.M.J. if you bother to look, or were in the mandatory class on military law in basic training. It's usually mentioned in the first ten minutes of class.) (another thing hollywood always gets wrong, you don't do everything the higher ranks tell you.)
if you accept that he reported (though by an unconventional means due to corruption of chain of command) then the other two you listed are moot, and the first is a non-issue.
Of course, we don't know a lot of what really went on, we just get what the media, and wikileaks, reported. Is he guilty or innocent? I don't know since don't want to make a judgement call without all the facts. Besides that, we have this really weird idea in our laws, something about innocent until proven guilty. I'm sure you guys have heard of it, even though it seems a lot of people these days want to pretend it's not there. (Not implying Altanar is one, it seems he's just posting a clarification for the others.)
Disinformation (Score:3, Insightful)
Anonymous as modded. It is very noticeable in this discussion how many ACs there are saying Manning caused people's deaths or generally calling for the death penalty. Yet to see a single citation on damage done. Just whispers and rumours, dark voices from the shadows that wikileaks shone a light into. Scum.
Re:Treason (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like in China when dissidents disappear, they should just man up and accept the consequences, they knew what was coming. We shouldn't complain or wish it were some other way, lest it happen to us too.
Re:One option missing: Whatever the laws say (Score:4, Insightful)
But as citizens in a democracy, we can express our opinions on what our laws should stipulate.
Re:Well in my imaginary world... (Score:5, Insightful)
... he didn't unearth some kind of evil conspiracy...
The killing, and subsequent cover up, of the Reuters reporters. That does it for me!
The US armed forces should hang their heads in shame for that alone, and for exposing that he should be released, and though technically he may be 'guilty' the time and atrocious treatment served so far should be enough (actually, too much!).
Accidents happen, but the way reasonable humans behave afterwards is to 'fess up to the accident to allow everyone to learn by your mistakes so it is hopefully less likely to happen again. You DON'T deny it happened. You don't say there's no footage of the incident when Reuters comes asking about it. You don't try and suppress the information like a bunch of cowards! ... I said it ... bloody cowards!
Yes
You're 'brave' enough to shoot the crap out of a bunch of people from your fucking heavily armed helicopter gunship whilst laughing about it, but don't have the balls to stand up for what is right and insist that ALL the wounded are medevac'd to the US medical facilities immediately. No, you cravenly slink off with your tail between your legs and leave the wounded to be picked up however much later by the local police and taken to some local hell-hole hospital. Honestly, you disgust me! YOU should have contacted Reuters and told them you just killed two of their reporters!
If you're not accountable for your actions then you are the worst kind of school bully. Always the biggest kid in the playground, but yellow to the core!
Apologies to all those brave men and women in the forces to whom this doesn't apply (and I believe, I hope, that is the majority), but YOU should be as appalled by this as I am. This is your armed forces. This is YOUR country. Do you honestly want your government doing things like this? If you do then you're no better than they are ... and karma be damned!
Re:"Legally" Guilty (Score:2, Insightful)
No, the situation is that you have no obligation to obey an unlawful order. It's not illegal in and of itself to obey an unlawful order. This was established through the Nuremberg trials that "I was following orders" is not an acceptable answer for why someone commits an illegal act, but failing to refuse an unlawful order is not itself a crime. This principle is however not written into the UCMJ, it's simply accepted that one has a moral duty to refuse to follow orders to commit an illegal act.
Now for the wonderful exception stuff. If you're in a combat situation and a superior commissioned officer orders you to commit an illegal act, you're not obligated to obey it. Yet, he can hold a field court martial, and sentence you to death, and carry out said sentence. Is the act he's ordering you to commit really unlawful? Does it really matter, because he's going to kill you, anyways. So, even though it's an unlawful order, he's holding the proverbial gun to your head, but not necessarily just proverbial anymore.
If you had actually attended a decent military law class in basic training (or were actually paying attention); you would know that they didn't give any such clear cut answer as "you are not to obey unlawful orders". You have to be sure it wasn't a lawful order, you may face a court martial despite the order being unlawful, and worst of all, in combat, all that might not matter, because of natural law (if the officer kills you, it doesn't matter if you're right or not.)
The guidance that we received was: follow orders, if you're sure that it's an unlawful order, ask the officer to repeat the order, if you're still pretty sure it's an unlawful order, then restate the order in a clear way that indicates that you believe it to be an unlawful order. If the officer still makes it clear that he intends to give you an unlawful order, make your own moral choice... because you can potentially face a court martial either way.
Re:agreed (Score:4, Insightful)
People are more interested in how we're going to punish wikileaks than the US's little wars. Feel free to scream your protest against the Iraq war from the roof tops, I don't think anyone really gives a crap anymore.
Re:"Legally" Guilty (Score:5, Insightful)
There sure seem to be a lot of ACs claiming this every time Manning is mentioned, yet no one ever provides evidence of this. In fact, I seem to recall the Pentagon stating that no one had died due to Manning's leak.
Re:One option missing: Whatever the laws say (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps Obama should imitate Bush and commute the sentence. It's basically the same crime as the one Libby did.
Huge difference:
Libby committed his crimes to further the political goals of the administration that was in power at the time.
Manning, (if guilty) committed his crimes to expose the truth and reveal hypocrisy in the government.
I don't think he can expect any executive mercy.
Re:Shindlers List (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Shindlers List (Score:2, Insightful)
Without a doubt this is most ignorant statement I've read on Slashdot in a while. If you can't see the difference between defying the Nazis at the cost of your own life, and giving a bunch of electronic documents to some guy in a cheap suit so you can make a name for yourself, you need your head checked. This ignorance of history comparing Nazis to the American government not interesting or true.
Manning will in all likelihood get life in prison. Good riddance.
Re:Shindlers List (Score:5, Insightful)
I regard Manning as a modern day Oskar_Schindler
I see him as more of a Mordechai Vanunu [wikipedia.org]. Both were given legitimate access to secret information about their country's military and then leaked that information. Both acted out of conscience - Manning believed that what he saw were war crimes being covered up - Vanunu believed that the people of the world had a right to know that Israel was secretly building weapons of mass destruction. Neither was motivated by money or a desire to betray their country - the motivation was in observing acts that they believed to be morally wrong, and the crime was in seeking to inform the general public about those acts. Vanunu spent 18 years in prison, with more than 11 in solitary confinement... we will have to wait and see what happens to Manning.
Re:Shindlers List (Score:5, Insightful)
The war in Iraq cost between 150,000 and 600,000 innocent lives, and it's still going on.
If his disclosures result in saving lives, as they well might, then the comparison to Schindler is appropriate.
Re:No congressional medal of honor option? (Score:3, Insightful)
You sully the Medal even with this suggestion. Better men have fought and died for less. Pissed off clerk != and will never = COH.