Current Affairs Surveillance in the US reaches new levels

[Marka Ragnos]

 

...I wouldn't be at all surprised if you were capable of shouldering the burden of thinking your way down some of those avenues.

 

But I will start (and finish) with this avenue: ask for a lawyer experienced in military law. Instantly, Manning would have been afforded certain protections from the UMCJ, including right to counsel and right to remain silent.

Edit: The onus is on you to substantiate your claim if you want others to give it credibility.

 

 

 

 

I agree. But I'm going to "give" you the opportunity to explore those possibilities on your own as you're clearly capable. I gave one idea; other obvious ones exist. No time to delineate, so I guess you win?

[Marka Ragnos]

 

And by the way, before you flame ... I'm probably about as hard left-wing as anyone on this board. Want to see my old CPUSA membership card lol? But you don't have to be a Little America or Little England reactionary to spot a quisling.

 

CP-USA?  Is that the organisation that was kept afloat financially by a combination of money from old, unreformed USSR, and membership subs from the 15% of its members who were FBI agents?

 

Yes, I'd be delighted to see your membership card.

 

Lol.

 

 

Hey, my clever and very original "lol" after my comment was intended to mark the line as ironic. As you note, it was indeed a joke of an organization, I agree. Have many funny stories I could tell you. Of course, that was a quarter century ago. Burned my card in 1989. 

 

My point, once again, is that people of very strong convictions across the political spectrum in the USA deplore Manning's actions. Similarly, he enjoys misguided support from many strange bedfellows here -- and even more, abroad.

[legov]

 

 

And by the way, before you flame ... I'm probably about as hard left-wing as anyone on this board. Want to see my old CPUSA membership card lol? But you don't have to be a Little America or Little England reactionary to spot a quisling.

 

CP-USA?  Is that the organisation that was kept afloat financially by a combination of money from old, unreformed USSR, and membership subs from the 15% of its members who were FBI agents?

 

Yes, I'd be delighted to see your membership card.

 

Lol.

 

 

Hey, my clever and very original "lol" after my comment was intended to mark the line as ironic. As you note, it was indeed a joke of an organization, I agree. Have many funny stories I could tell you. Of course, that was a quarter century ago. Burned my card in 1989. 

 

My point, once again, is that people of very strong convictions across the political spectrum in the USA deplore Manning's actions. Similarly, he enjoys misguided support from many strange bedfellows here -- and even more, abroad.

 

 

Hmmmmmmmm

[Awol]

Agree with the Fed, I mean STN. Manning deserved the sentence he got and IMO is a very different case to Snowden.

[maqroll]

Dana Milbank on Bradley Manning 

 

When the judge read out the young soldier’s 35-year sentence Wednesday morning forgiving classified information to WikiLeaks, family members wept and supporters cried out, “We are with you! You are a hero!”

But Manning, 25, whisked quickly from the room after the brief sentencing, was philosophical. “It’s okay. It’s all right,’” he told his attorney, Lt. Col. David Coombs, who was in tears over his client’s fate. “I’m going to be okay. I’m going to get through this.”

Manning was bound for prison at Fort Leavenworth, but Coombs, free to speak his mind at the end of the three-year legal saga, held a news conference at a nearby hotel in the afternoon and read a statement from Manning to President Obama requesting a pardon.

“I understand that my actions violated the law. I regret if my actions hurt anyone orharmed the United States,” the statement said. “When I chose to disclose classified information, I did so out of a love for my country and a sense of duty to others. If you deny my request for a pardon, I will serve my time knowing that sometimes you have to pay a heavy price to live in a free society. I will gladly pay that price if it means we could have a country that is truly conceived in liberty.”

Manning’s dignity is a good model for Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency leaker now hiding from American justice in Russia. Manning admitted what he had done, and he used his trial and its conclusion to argue for the righteousness of his cause. That cause was artfully described by Coombs, who with the shaved head of a military man and the business suit of a civilian lawyer, stood before 20 TV cameras and took as many questions as reporters could ask.

“Under the current administration, an unauthorized leak to the media of classified information is viewed as being tantamount to aiding the enemy,” a capital offense, Coombs said. “The government-wide crackdown on whistleblowers and the extension of this crackdown to journalists threatens to stifle the flow of information that is vital to our public.” A country in which “you are faced with a death-penalty offense” for the simple act of disclosing information to a journalist, Coombs added, “is not the America that I would hope that we live in.”

Manning beat a charge of aiding the enemy, and his trial also brought attention to the government practice of labeling “secret” things the public should know. “The cancer of over-classification is threatening the very fabric of our free society,” Coombs warned. “Over-classification hinders debate. It hinders what we know about our government. It hinders finding solutions to common problems [such as] how do we keep our way of life in a post-9/11 world.”

There are, of course, varying opinions about Manning. I think he went too far, making some valid disclosures but losing his moral authority by dumping all kinds of government documents that embarrassed U.S. officials without serving any public good. He broke the law, and his sentence — he will be eligible for parole in seven years — could have been a lot worse.

But whatever you think about Manning, his trial and his pretrial treatment exposed how zealous the national security state has been, even under this Democratic president. The tiny offender, little more than a boy, was initially held under 23-hour lockdown in a small cell and denied clothing. Coombs said his hundreds of military clients have included murderers and child molesters — “and those types of clients receive less time than Pfc. Manning.”

On hand for the news conference were academic Cornel West (in three-piece suit and scarf even on the warm summer day) and dozens of local activists wearing black T-shirts with the message, “President Obama, Pardon Bradley.”

That’s not likely; administration officials say Manning did real harm to American interests. But as he does his time at Leavenworth, Manning can know that he contributed to an important debate about the reach of the national security state.

The administration, Coombs pointed out, has suggested that reporters can be prosecuted for receiving classified information, and it has prosecuted more leaks than all previous administrations while roughing up whistleblowers. On top of that, he said, the prosecution of the WikiLeaks leaker “does send a message and it’s a chilling one and it’s endorsed at the very highest levels of this administration.”

You don’t need to agree with what Manning did to agree with Coombs that government secrecy has gone too far.

 

Edited August 22, 2013 by maqroll

[snowychap]

 

Edit: The onus is on you to substantiate your claim if you want others to give it credibility.

I agree.

 

Excellent.

In the 'spurious' bin it goes for the present then.

[Marka Ragnos]

Edit: The onus is on you to substantiate your claim if you want others to give it credibility.

I agree.

Excellent.

In the 'spurious' bin it goes for the present then.

Or "fractional" folder? Prefer that to spurious bin. :-)

In related news, I was surprised to hear about Manning's transgender status. Had no idea. Makes me think his sentence should be shortened. Weird that defense didn't actively use to argue for confused state of mind. My guess is that Manning wouldn't allow on principle.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Fair play.

 

 

She wants hormone treatment while in prison. Good luck getting the US Army to pay for that.

[Marka Ragnos]

Fair play.

 

 

She wants hormone treatment while in prison. Good luck getting the US Army to pay for that.

 

Her supporters will pay for it in a nanosecond. If she's only going "chemically female," it's not even that expensive.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Shifted To Neutral

[BOF]

I dare someone to say it ...

[maqroll]

She's your type?

[peterms]

Agree with the Fed, I mean STN. Manning deserved the sentence he got and IMO is a very different case to Snowden.

 

I believe it's a longer sentence than Anders Breivik, out of interest.

 

As Chris Hedges points out here, the material he leaked was classed "secret" not "top secret", which rather undermines a lot of the hyperventilating flummery about betrayal of his country, imminent deaths of secret agents, and all that bollocks.

 

It's also an interesting point that since some of it concerned US war crimes, there is both a moral and a legal duty to expose it; something which seems to have escaped the attention of the other 5m people who had access to it, and large parts of the media, and even some people here.

 

I was also fascinated to learn that the Espionage Act had been used three times since 1917 (including against Daniel Ellsberg, another person once reviled in some quarters and now properly regarded as brave and right in what he did), but since Obama's election, he has used it seven times.

 

What with the secret rendition, the offshore torture camps, the undermining of democratically elected governments in favour of murderous thugs, the US is run by a pretty grubby and disreputable regime.

 

Manning was entirely right to leak this stuff, and in years to come this will be seen for the act of bravery and moral strength which it was.

[snowychap]

Its an interesting call..... is the leaking/holding/distribution of illegally obtained top secret material and act or terrorism? You could make a convincing argument for both sides of the story.... I'm not sure you can say the law has been flouted in this circumstance. In fact looking at Sections 1 and 2 of the Act, there is a very strong argument to support the notion that they were acting well within the requirements of the act. Although I acknowledge that is a particularly draconian interpretation.

I'd like to hear the 'convincing' argument for the government's/police's side of the story.

Further, though, my attention has been drawn to this (which I guess is what Charlie Falconer was on about):

...

Power to stop, question and detain

2

(1)An examining officer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)( .

...

40 Terrorist: interpretation.

(1)In this Part “terrorist” means a person who—

...

(b)is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

Details from Legislation.gov.

[Mark8691]

Manning gets 35 years. Sadly, it's not Bernard ....

 

When exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime, you are ruled by criminals

[Marka Ragnos]

 

Manning gets 35 years. Sadly, it's not Bernard ....

 

When exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime, you are ruled by criminals

 

 

And if you're treating a crime as a crime, you are ruled by ... laws?

[maqroll]

 

 

Manning gets 35 years. Sadly, it's not Bernard ....

 

When exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime, you are ruled by criminals

 

 

And if you're treating a crime as a crime, you are ruled by ... laws?

 

Laws which are often manipulated to suppress, intimidate and silence those who would attempt to expose a more insidious criminality. 

[privateer]

I dare someone to say it ...

Well of course I would. Looks like a prettier, less raddled version of Courtney Love. Nothing wrong there a decent back, crack and sack wax wouldn't sort out. (No homo).

[blandy]

...As Chris Hedges points out here, the material he leaked was classed "secret" not "top secret", which rather undermines a lot of the hyperventilating flummery about betrayal of his country, imminent deaths of secret agents, and all that bollocks.

 

It's also an interesting point that since some of it concerned US war crimes, there is both a moral and a legal duty to expose it; something which seems to have escaped the attention of the other 5m people who had access to it, and large parts of the media, and even some people here.

 

I was also fascinated to learn that the Espionage Act had been used three times since 1917 (including against Daniel Ellsberg, another person once reviled in some quarters and now properly regarded as brave and right in what he did), but since Obama's election, he has used it seven times.

 

What with the secret rendition, the offshore torture camps, the undermining of democratically elected governments in favour of murderous thugs, the US is run by a pretty grubby and disreputable regime.

 

Manning was entirely right to leak this stuff, and in years to come this will be seen for the act of bravery and moral strength which it was.

 

The leaking of secret information is the leaking of secret information. Even the Guardian and the other news media that were given the database said that they could see that revealing parts of it would endanger lives and so on. It wasn't select information pertinent to specific crimes, it was the stealing and leaking of the full database. The names of people who have been helping the US, or working for the US, unknown, in Afghanistan,  Saudi, Azerbaijan, Syria, Iraq or wherever  - those people will surely have been endangered.

 

He didn't leak only something exposing illegal acts or war crimes, he leaked everything, an entire database of classified information. Everything he could get his hands-on.

 

You say he was right to do it and brave and moral. That's kind of (to me) looking at the revelation of some of the bad stuff the US has done, and ascribing motivation based on the revelation of that stuff.  Kind of "he's shown the US doing bad things, so he's good and brave and moral", but ignoring that he also revealed a load of stuff that harmed the legitimate interests of his country, endangered the lives of people and so on.

 

So there's mitigation, perhaps, but not quite to the level you imply.

 

Then there's motivation - why did he do it? Was it to show crimes? Was to hit out at the US? was it because he is just a deeply troubled soul, and there was no coherent motivation?

 

It's kind of analogous to phone tapping that the media did - if the Sun phone taps some person, at random, and it turns out they were doing something illegal is that OK? or is it a case that indiscriminate phone tapping is wrong, and the ends don't justify the means? Or if the state monitors everyone's phones, and they catch some bad people is that OK, then? Or should we say "hold on - that's not proportionate and the law should not allow that"

 

So I don't think he was"right, brave and moral" I think he was a casualty of circumstance and his own confused state. What he did was in parts very harmful, in parts very welcome (by luck more than judgement) and in part very mundane. He was massively irresponsible and careless and thoughtless.

 

If he ends up doing 8-10 years because of it, I don't see that as disproportionate.

I don't think he was treated well, or in the right way before his trial. To me that's more telling than the sentence, and more telling about the way America is run and conducts itself.

[peterms]

I'm still waiting to hear about cases where real people have actually been endangered by what Manning did, rather than vague assertions about lives being put at risk.

 

On the other hand, a great many lives have been lost, and millions more placed at risk, by the things the US government has done and is doing.  What has been the impact of Abu Ghraib on recruitment to terrorist groups, for example?  Or is the problem not what the US soldiers did there, but the fact of publicising it more widely and demonstrating it with proof, instead of leaving it as denied and uncorroborated accounts by prisoners?

 

I don't know if it would have been at all feasible for him to have sifted the information and downloaded only that pertaining to war crimes - sounds like many months work to me.  Or perhaps you mean just download one thing that came to his attention, and leave the rest unseen?

 

It's not at all analogous to media phone tapping.  That was eavesdropping for financial gain.  This is realising from information to which his employer has willingly given access, that his employer is engaged in widespread and systematic unlawful conduct, and deciding that he should do something about it; classic whistleblowing.

 

As for his being troubled and confused, there's an attempt in the media at the moment to use his gender issues as a way of discrediting his whistleblowing actions.  It's about on a par with trying to explain the history of the FBI by reference to J Edgar Hoover's prediliction for cross-dressing; a titillating detail, but not the issue.

[Risso]

Obama hasn't turned out to be "all that" has he?