Wikileaks

[Zingari]

You should voice your concerns through the appropriate channels. If you're not happy after that, then plan to quit.

Are you saying that if you were witnessing war crimes , you should first contact your immediate superior and then hand over your resignation ? 

Wouldn't that be a bit ludicrous . Surely if you know about it then so does all the others in the line of command 

You're only hope ( if you have a concience) is to bypass them and hope you can get full exposure by other means .

 

I'm starting to suspect you're just ragging me into more posts . This is about excess post number 10 now   

 

this really is it , good day to you good sir 

[Zingari]

The media usually throw in some "sexually orientated" spin on a story to make someone look bad. Take a look at this documentry, about Julian Assange. Bradley will get a similar kind of tabloid treatment.

That was indeed a very good programme , thanks for posting it foz 

it seems the girls are telling quite a different story to what we read about , and the bit about Assange having a "Red" warrant arrest seems very telling . 

And of course there's the collateral murder video ( not for the faint hearted or those that wish to continue to believe Manning should keep quiet)

[Bellend Sebastian]

I think I'm going to leak some sensitive information to cover up all my sexual deviances

[Zingari]

I saw the footage of those civilians being killed. I think the public benefits from being able to see the atrocities that are carried out by their countries armed forces. Obviously different people will interpret things differently but it's better for the information to be out there.

i've only just seen it courtesy of the link posted by foz foz.

how the fook suppression of that is supposed to be in the national security interest heaven knows!  

 

link is in post number 260 if you're interested in watching it 

[ADK]

What if he had released info that allowed terrorists to learn the best way to plant a bomb at the walkers stadium on match day?

We're all dead but hey, at least we know some mid ranking soldier accidentally mistook a civilian for an enemy soldier in the middle of a shootout in a warzone in Iraq.

 

But he didn't do that.

 

The stuff Manning provided wikileaks was mostly diplomatic messages and some reports of battlefield actions. The vast majority of it was quite frankly boring and of no relevance to anything. Most of the leaked material actually paints the US in a positive light. I'm quite sure the charges about aiding terrorists (which were rejected by the courts) were more about public perception.

 

If the US had simply pressed charges about leaking classified documents and sentenced him to 35 years people would probably be more likely to disagree with the harshness of sentence. My muddying the water with a more serious sounding charge, even though he was found not guilty, it links the two charges in the public mind.

 

The facts are that:

 

a) Manning didn't leak anything that would be useful to terrorists in planning an attack.

b) There is no evidence that anything leaked by Manning caused anyone to be in increased danger.

[Smudge]

But he didn't do that.

 

The stuff Manning provided wikileaks was mostly diplomatic messages and some reports of battlefield actions. The vast majority of it was quite frankly boring and of no relevance to anything. Most of the leaked material actually paints the US in a positive light. I'm quite sure the charges about aiding terrorists (which were rejected by the courts) were more about public perception.

 

If the US had simply pressed charges about leaking classified documents and sentenced him to 35 years people would probably be more likely to disagree with the harshness of sentence. My muddying the water with a more serious sounding charge, even though he was found not guilty, it links the two charges in the public mind.

 

The facts are that:

 

a) Manning didn't leak anything that would be useful to terrorists in planning an attack.

b) There is no evidence that anything leaked by Manning caused anyone to be in increased danger.

The facts are that he broke the law.

[leicsmac]

The facts are that he broke the law.

 

Right, and so he faces the consequences.

 

However, it does cast doubt on the rightness of the law that he broke itself. 

[MooseBreath]

Right, and so he faces the consequences.

However, it does cast doubt on the rightness of the law that he broke itself.

Seems pretty cut and dried to me. His superiors decide what is confidential/classified or whatever. If he decides to take matters into his own hands then he is breaking the law. For me there is no reason to create some kind of grey area where classified info is redefined post-leak depending on its specific content. Either it's classified or it's not. And whether it is or not is not for the likes of ladyboy manning to decide.

[leicsmac]

Seems pretty cut and dried to me. His superiors decide what is confidential/classified or whatever. If he decides to take matters into his own hands then he is breaking the law. For me there is no reason to create some kind of grey area where classified info is redefined post-leak depending on its specific content. Either it's classified or it's not. And whether it is or not is not for the likes of ladyboy manning to decide.

 

Then who does?

 

It's clear from the information contained in the leaks that some of the people who classify this content at the present time cannot be trusted because they use that for their own self-interest/cover their own arses after they've done something really nasty. That said, your average voter doesn't know nearly enough about realpolitik to be trusted with this stuff either. So it's a bit of a tear-up.

 

I've said all along and I'll say it again - this is about accountability. Let the people who know the most about this stuff make the decisions - but make sure they damn well explain why to anyone who wants to know afterwards.

[ADK]

The facts are that he broke the law.

 

To me the punishment is far too severe.

[Smudge]

To me the punishment is far too severe.

I assume the law was clear as to what punishment he might have expected before the crime, it was his choice.

[Smudge]

It seems to me that the Military need an equivalent department to the Office of Special Council, whereby whistleblowers are protected. This would allow outlets for those who have witnessed war crimes without breaking the military code.

[ADK]

I assume the law was clear as to what punishment he might have expected before the crime, it was his choice.

 

But do you think the punishment is justified? There are many countries that have unjust laws that their citizens may be aware of but when people take a stand against them, we in the west tend to side with the person if we feel what they did was morally right.

 

How can leaking information be considered worse than murder for example?

[leicsmac]

I assume the law was clear as to what punishment he might have expected before the crime, it was his choice.

 

That doesn't preclude the idea that the persons who made that law were correct to make the punishment that severe.

 

I agree with the sentencing in this case as it was within the law. I disagree with the law (or the application of it) as a whole itself, as well as the people who felt the need for it to be implemented in this law.

 

It seems to me that the Military need an equivalent department to the Office of Special Council, whereby whistleblowers are protected. This would allow outlets for those who have witnessed war crimes without breaking the military code.

 

This would be a great idea.

[Smudge]

But do you think the punishment is justified? There are many countries that have unjust laws that their citizens may be aware of but when people take a stand against them, we in the west tend to side with the person if we feel what they did was morally right.

 

How can leaking information be considered worse than murder for example?

We live in a democracy or so we believe. We elect law makers and they legislate for crimes and misdemenours with a range of punishments. Those laws are policed and decided by the judiciary. That's the check and balance that neither the legislature nor the judiciary can override each other. In otherwords the judge can only mete out punishment as decided by the legislature and not make interpretations.

[Smudge]

That doesn't preclude the idea that the persons who made that law were correct to make the punishment that severe.

 

I agree with the sentencing in this case as it was within the law. I disagree with the law (or the application of it) as a whole itself, as well as the people who felt the need for it to be implemented in this law.

 

 

This would be a great idea.

I am not trying to defend whether the law is a good one or that the punishment fits the crime. My comment isn't a personal one at all. It is a matter of fact statement that you can't change the law to fit the crime after the event.

[leicsmac]

We live in a democracy or so we believe. We elect law makers and they legislate for crimes and misdemenours with a range of punishments. Those laws are policed and decided by the judiciary. That's the check and balance that neither the legislature nor the judiciary can override each other. In otherwords the judge can only mete out punishment as decided by the legislature and not make interpretations.

 

That's the way the system should work. But the system is imperfect, and can be corrupt, exploitable and lack accountability at the higher levels, which is why whistle-blowers are occasionally necessary. 

 

 

I am not trying to defend whether the law is a good one or that the punishment fits the crime. My comment isn't a personal one at all. It is a matter of fact statement that you can't change the law to fit the crime after the event.

 

Fair enough, and you're right. The law can be changed, but it can't act retrospectively.

[Rincewind]

On Thursday we had a guest on the radio (Author of Innit) who spoke about an Home Office minister who was visiting a project which was a restaurant run by prisoners (under supervision I would think) The restaurant was one of two that have been set up and the chefs had all gained qualifications whilst in prison. The minister was asked what he thought of what they had achieved an his reply was to say these men should be locked up.

With men in charge with such outdated views what chance is there for change. In a lot of prisons work and education programs are being cut giving the minor offenders even less chance of finding work when released.

Do the government want prisoners to go back inside to free up jobs outside?

[Smudge]

On Thursday we had a guest on the radio (Author of Innit) who spoke about an Home Office minister who was visiting a project which was a restaurant run by prisoners (under supervision I would think) The restaurant was one of two that have been set up and the chefs had all gained qualifications whilst in prison. The minister was asked what he thought of what they had achieved an his reply was to say these men should be locked up.

With men in charge with such outdated views what chance is there for change. In a lot of prisons work and education programs are being cut giving the minor offenders even less chance of finding work when released.

Do the government want prisoners to go back inside to free up jobs outside?

How can you take the view of one person and ascribe to every member of the government?

[Zingari]

If you witness crimes and/or you have information about them  and don't do anything about it are you  committing a crime ?

Doesn't it make you an accessory to the crime ?  

[Rincewind]

How can you take the view of one person and ascribe to every member of the government?

by the policies. OK it was the view of one man but one that is involved in prisons and prisoner reforms. I wonder what those men thought when hearing it? Why should I bother trying if I am not allowed to prove I can change?

[Webbo]

by the policies. OK it was the view of one man but one that is involved in prisons and prisoner reforms. I wonder what those men thought when hearing it? Why should I bother trying if I am not allowed to prove I can change?

You make it sound like they are doing us a favour by not committing crime.

[Smudge]

 

If you witness crimes and/or you have information about them  and don't do anything about it are you  committing a crime ?

Doesn't it make you an accessory to the crime ?  

 

I think they are called witnesses, I don't ever recollect a witness being prosecuted under accessory, where's Lisa when you need her?

[ADK]

 

If you witness crimes and/or you have information about them  and don't do anything about it are you  committing a crime ?

Doesn't it make you an accessory to the crime ?  

 

 

Ironically yes.

[Smudge]

by the policies. OK it was the view of one man but one that is involved in prisons and prisoner reforms. I wonder what those men thought when hearing it? Why should I bother trying if I am not allowed to prove I can change?

I don't disagree with yur sentiments Ken I just don't believe in tarring everyone with ethe same brush. What was the minister's name?