They have not made a connection between Manning and Assange. Without a trial, they are severely punishing Manning.
We have had whistleblower protections for a long time. Bush and his admin,. gutted them. The things Bush did needed to be kept in the dark. We have laws that give a whisleblower a cut when they recover money from a corporation cheating the government. We make legal provisions to protect them.
Again, the problem is not someone telling us what the government does. It is what the government did that is wrong. The people deserve and need to know. Manning did us a service. He did not fabricate the info. It is simply a compilation of what our government does behind the curtain.
Do you or have you ever held a security clearance? I’m guessing not, because you seem to be confused about the concepts of “whistleblowing” and deliberately violating the terms of a security clearance.
So far, I have seen no evidence of whistle blowing. The communiques that were released show the internal discussions, with pro and con arguments, regarding various events and personal assessments of other countries’ leaders, but nothing released has provided evidence that Bush or his minions engineered the invasion of Iraq on false pretenses, (that info is already pretty commonly known, but there was nothing new in Manning’s stuff that further confirmed it), there is no evidence that the U.S. was plotting to invade any other countries or assassinate leaders, no evidence that the U.S. government was dealing drugs or poisoning groundwater.
In other words: there was no whistle blowing, so your claim for protection for Manning fails.
There are established procedures for whistleblowing, namely, bringing classified items to the attention of Inspectors General or Congress.
But Manning wasn’t blowing any whistles. He had no allegation of wrongdoing by the government. He simply stole hundreds of thousands of documents and wanted them to be published. The only whistle being blown is the one crying, “Hey everyone, look at me!”
You see no evidence of anything. He has not had a trial. But, do you doubt he had the public interest in mind?
From what I have read, thousands had access to the info. If it was strategic, it was very poorly kept. If it actually needed to be kept, for whatever reason. it would not have been available of thousands of computers with free and open access.
If your claim is he did not give out important info on transgressions, then why punish him at all?
Somebody really seems to like to play the “what if?” game.
I see a lot of evidence. All one has to do is browse through Wikileaks to see the evidence.
On the other hand, you are claiming that he should have some sort of whistleblower protection or exemption without providing any evidence that he actually “blew the whistle” on any wrongdoing.
I am willing to let the government bring Manning to trial and let it and his lawyer hammer out before a jury whether he committed a crime and, if so, whether he should be punished according to the law. You, on the other hand, want him to get a free pass just based on nothing more than an unsupported claim that he was a “whistleblower” without a shred of evidence that he actually was.
Wow what a scaredy cat. Terrorists always make huge claims in the hope they can scare little people into giving up their freedoms.
Some half assed band of terrorists got extremely lucky in 911. The fact is they have been chopped to pieces and have little power. But they can make absurd claims about the damage they can do . Some people will believe them.
Will they get lucky again? I don’t know but even that will not make me want to give up my freedoms.
Bank of America and the other banks have gotten bigger and bigger while we proclaimed" too big to fail[ was an evil. There is nothing they did that shouldn’t be public. They were crooks and deserve no [protection. If we prosecuted them , there is a chance to clean them up. Skipping any action because they are too important is against everything we theoretically stand for. Justice and paying for your crimes are important cornerstones of our republic.
Theses arrogant jerks gave themselves huge bonuses when they crashed the system through total mismanagement and fraud. They argued that they had to retain their super high class staff by loading them up with tax payer money. They had nowhere to go. All the banks were crashing. Yet some people are dumb enough to buy that argument.
What keeps them from doing the same thing now? They got away with it and made a fortune. Let them face the law like any other criminal. Then the new management might do the right thing.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/wikileaks-nominees-nobel-peace-prize/
Nobel Peace prize for Wikileaks.
“WikiLeaks among nominees for Nobel Peace Prize”
But it wouldn’t surprise me. They gave it to Obama. :rolleyes:
I(t just tells you how others see Wikileaks. They are performing a needed public service.
Manning has been in solitary confinement for 6 months. He is being pretty well tortured. Teaching potential whistleblowers a lesson.
Barack Obama is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and so is Liu Xiabo and Mohamed ElBaradei. I wouldn’t be surprised if they gave it to Julian Assange. 
Trend-setters the lot of them, I’d say!
Apparently you do not understand how trivially easy it is to be nominated.
He isn’t a whistleblower.
Oh, really? Well, since this is GD, I’m going to have to ask you for a cite for this claim of torture. So, cough it up.
They don’t cover it on Fox.
The Guardian has published a book which includes some revelations about Assange’s approach to the whole saga. Here is a gem of a quote:
Truly a Nobel laureate in the making.
This is not appropriate in GD, (unless you would like everyone to be able to call you “scaredy cat” every time you post one more “everyone in Big Business is evil and they’re going to get us” screeds).
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
I don’t think you understand. When asked for a site for a claim you’ve made, what you present should substantiate your claim. You made two statements:
- Manning has been in solitary confinement for 6 months.
- He is being pretty well tortured.
Number 1 is a fact everyone agrees on. Number 2 is what I asked you to substantiate. Not 1, 2. Your cite simply says supports Number 1. Care to try again?
Being is solitary for 6 months is torture. You can understand that, can’t you?