dagblog - Comments for " Moral Imperative of Bradley Manning"

Aaron, I don't understand

Bruce Levine — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 13:08:44 +0000

In reply to Before the Manning case, I

Aaron,

I don't understand your distress at all. Why would it be a stretch to hold a defendant in the capacity of a Manning accountable if he or she gives confidential top secret information to a Wikileaks, and then that Wikileaks turns around and places it in the public domain for anyone, including al qaeda, as the Guardian article AA has submitted above reflects is part of the government's case? Free speech is not the issue; the issue is whether Manning violated the law, and the law does not allow one in Manning's shoes, or so I understand, to release information to anyone, even to his or her mom or bff.

The point is, clearly I think, that military personnel with access to confidential information must comply with their obligations not to disclose that information to anyone, and if they choose not to comply, even for reasons of morality however just, then they should be prepared to suffer the consequences.

But I really do think we should focus on the evidence that is presented to really understand what is happening here.

Before the Manning case, I

Aaron Carine — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 09:50:45 +0000

In reply to Moral Imperative of Bradley Manning

Before the Manning case, I really didn't know about the provisions of the Espionage Act. I used to criticize Britain for the Official Secrets Act, but this isn't that much better. It's especially distressing that he is being charged with "aiding the enemy". Because terrorists can read Wikileaks? That is how it is in a free society; anyone can read stuff published by the media, and that is how it should be.

Apparently it was delivered

rmrd0000 — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 02:54:27 +0000

In reply to After the attacks of 9/11,

Apparently it was delivered February 10, 2004 as he was installed as a professor at Duke University

I don't know either how soon

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 02:21:45 +0000

In reply to If the bishop made that

I don't know either how soon after 9/11 the Bishop made his statement. He is probably not so insensitive as to have made it on 9/12 when people were scared and mad and confused and feeling vengeful. At some later point in time, maybe when a bit of studious introspection is due, if not long overdue, it becomes an incitefull look at us from without, IMO.

Manning definitely broke

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 02:13:07 +0000

In reply to Good point. If Manning had

Manning definitely broke laws. He could not reveal the astounding depth and breadth of the conniving, lying, and war crimes that he had proof of without breaking one or more laws. If the fact of Manning breaking the law is all that matters, he has no defense. If in fact his actual guilt, in a bigger sense, could be determined by a mindless, soulless, computing machine which was fed nothing but the pertinent law and the narrow facts of his actions within the scope of that law, then he has no defense. If blind adherence to arbitrary man-made laws which are being murderously abused and are dismissive of conscience is considered to be more important than recognizing the brave act of risking everything for a greater good, and again, if the factually correct charge that he broke the law is all that matters, then thing are actually even more bleak than McGovern suggests, IMO.

If the bishop made that

Aaron Carine — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 01:48:19 +0000

In reply to Moral Imperative of Bradley Manning

If the bishop made that statement right after 9/11, then it was objectionable. He should have been attacking the perpetrators, not the victim.

Good point. If Manning had

NCD — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 23:39:26 +0000

In reply to McGovern makes things out to

Good point.

If Manning had just released the Baghdad chopper massacre video this would be a much better case for him, and dicey for the gov't as the incident was clearly not defensible. The other 400,000 things he released are a very big problem for the defense.

McGovern makes things out to

Aaron Carine — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 20:28:01 +0000

In reply to Moral Imperative of Bradley Manning

McGovern makes things out to be more bleak than they are. The United States IS becoming less prone to violence; the polls show there is little support for new wars, and Obama passed up the chance to make war in Iran, Syria, and Mali. A majority of Americans want out of Afghanistan. In the second week of the Libyan adventure, public support was at only 52 percent. The mood in the country is not really "we do nothing but good".

After the attacks of 9/11,

A Guy Called LULU — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 16:45:04 +0000

In reply to Moral Imperative of Bradley Manning

After the attacks of 9/11, Bishop Peter Storey of South Africa, a long-time fearless opponent of the earlier apartheid regime, offered this prophetic word:

“I have often suggested to American Christians that the only way to understand their mission is to ask what it might have meant to witness faithfully to Jesus in the heart of the Roman Empire. …

“American preachers have a task more difficult, perhaps, than those faced by us under South Africa’s apartheid, or by Christians under Communism. We had obvious evils to engage; you have to unwrap your culture from years of red, white, and blue myth.

“You have to expose, and confront, the great disconnect between the kindness, compassion, and caring of most American people and the ruthless way American power is experienced, directly and indirectly, by the poor of the earth. You have to help good people see how they have let their institutions do their sinning for them.

“This is not easy among people who really believe that their country does nothing but good. But it is necessary, not only for their future, but for us all.