So when Bradley Manning says something you like, like that he’s transgender, you accept it on face value. But when he says something you don’t like, like that he’s sorry for what he did, it’s because they beat a confession out of him.
Consistency? You’re soaking in it!
While we’re at it, shall we dig up the Rosenbergs and reinter them at Arlington?
Let’s also remember that Ellsberg did try to go thru proper channels first, but was basically told to go take a hike.
So…she does just need to shut up and do what she’s told, her superiors know best do they? Whatever they say must be right because of the position they hold? Whenever an order is given it must be obeyed no matter what? no personal interpretation needed or allowed?
here you say
So here’s the logical extension of this. Had Manning seen evidence that someone in the US forces had been ordered to something equally abhorrent and the normal channels were closed, would she be right to release that to the world.
In my mind yes, clearly, absolutely and definitely.
what about you?
Of course. That would point to him being a spy or a mercenary. Presumably if he just gave it to a specific government they’d keep it to themselves. Instead it’s out there for everyone to see.
So, if we think a person is not being truthful about one thing, we have to assume that he is not being truthful about all things? People only have two settings, in your world? Totally, 100% honest at all times, and compulsive liar?
No, but the obviousness of the hero worship is hard to miss. Everything that Manning’s supporters want to hear is evidence of Manning’s incredible integrity and courage; anything Manning’s supporters don’t want to hear is evidence of the effects of government torture (or whatever).
So do you think Manning was truthful about the apology? Or was Manning simply saying whatever unprincipled statements came to mind that might convince the judge to lighten the sentence?
I don’t see the difference. Hostile governments obtain the information in both cases.
If he gives it to a specific government they keep it to for themselves.
Yes, but they have it and the US government knows they have it, and acts accordingly.
People could still die from his action.
So, you think people should be given medals for giving the names of Afghan “collaborators”(I.E. women pissed the Taliban won’t set up schools for girls) to people who think such collaborators deserve to die?
Would you mind explaining your reasoning because it seems quite weird to me.
Thanks in advance.
Manning did not do this. In fact, the US government could not come up with a single example of anyone dying as a result of the leaks.
Where did I say this got anyone killed?
I said he turned over the names of so-called “collaborators” to a man who declared that such “collaborators” should be killed.
That he did so is not in dispute to anyone familiar with the case. I’m surprised you’re disputing it.
Anyway, hopefully Brainglutton will be willing to explain his decision to think that such behavior warrants a medal.
He’s known for doing that. Assange lost any kind of “hero” status for me after I learned the full story behind the rape charges.