5 ms·

Bradley Manning Trial: Is Our Future an Orwellian Nightmare Or Info Anarchy?

100 points by gridscomputing 13y ago

mpyne 13y ago
The "Obama Administration" isn't prosecuting Manning, except insofar as has hasn't ordered the Commanding General at Ft. Meade sacked (which would be a much different kind of legal system interference). Likewise, (and I hate to sound like the ski instructor) if Manning hadn't wanted his trial to be "shrouded in secrecy" then he shouldn't have leaked classified information while under arms. Closing a trial is something that can be done in a court-martial, and that was true since far before Manning had raised his right hand to fight the war in Iraq and signed his DD-4. Even with the secrecy though, the article itself answers the question of how Manning might be sentenced to life imprisonment: The charge of "aiding the enemy" requires only that Manning knowingly leak the information knowing that it could be directly or indirectly provided to the enemy. If even one page of that had ended up in any AQ or Taliban hands that would seal the deal. As it turns out a bunch was found in Osama bin Laden's possession. Case closed, as far as that goes. I think it's important to note again that Snowden was quite clear in his initial interview that his actions were materially different from Manning's. He went so far as to note that he leaked only a few specific issues, and not just anything that he could grab, which he certainly could have done had he wished.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  Technically there was no "war" in Iraq. The US never officially declared war on Iraq. I might be arguing semantics, but that's probably relevant when you talk about the legality of someone's actions.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - mpyne 13y ago
    You are arguing semantics a bit, but it doesn't matter: Military force has been authorized by Congress against Al Qaeda and those who support and enable them (including the Taliban). As Manning was in the military when he did what he did, that aspect of it will not be in doubt.
- jacquesm 13y ago
  This all hinges on being able to declare individuals enemies in the same way that nation states were once enemies, and on being able to create a state of war without an actual opponent (war on terrorism) or on some pretext (Iraq). Iraq & Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with each other. The biggest enemy of the US at the moment would appear to be the US itself, goodwill built up over half a century has evaporated in a decade.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    OBL was affiliated with AQ, was he not? While you're right that AQ is not a nation-state in the same way a country would be, it would be completely incorrect to say they're completely unorganized. For crying out loud, they require their "soldiers" to submit expense reports for travel! Someone in that organization has to receive and approve that expense report. I mentioned that Manning volunteered to fight the war in Iraq to point out that there is a certain lack of nobleness in his actions by your own standard. But the 'enemy' he aided was OBL as the article and myself both mentioned. Note that I never said OBL had anything to do with Iraq, or even that there was any justifiable reason for the U.S. to be in Iraq. But none of that gave Manning a reason to help AQ or the Taliban.
- mtgx 13y ago
  The US government classifies everything it doesn't want the public to know these days. So with that logic, they could say anything that leaks and was classified is "aiding the enemy". Since the enemy is basically the whole world now, that's might convenient. I think people need to understand "authoritarian logic" more. Because even behind the most ruthless dictators and most oppressive governments in the world there is a logic. They may want to keep the country "unified", or "secure", or whatever. Of course they aren't going to just go the public and say they are doing something "because we say so". That would make revolutions way too easy to happen. They need to give them some kind of "logic", no matter how ridiculous it sounds, to keep the people docile. That's why they still keep laws around. It's just that they pass whatever the laws they want, and then simply say "what you did was illegal". And that's how they keep the rest of the population docile, and making them think: "hey, maybe that guy deserved it - he shouldn't have broken the law". I mean just look at Aaron Swartz. Even he had quite a few critics, that thought he "shouldn't have broken the law", no matter how insane those laws were to begin with. I don't think most Americans realize it yet, but the US law is so complex, and has so many crazy laws, that they could arrest pretty much anyone over anything at this point.
  - pekk 13y ago
    I feel obligated to point out that you are ranting so passionately that you repeatedly leave reason behind. It isn't accurate to say that any leak is "aiding the enemy" or "the enemy is the whole world". The US does not have a dictator. Laws are still passed by the legislature in the same old way they have been, and are not being applied ex post facto. It isn't actually true that "they could arrest pretty much anyone over anything at this point."
    - nickff 13y ago
      Law is different from legislation. While the latter is passed by the legislature, the former can grow and evolve without any democratic input, through regulation and court rulings.
      - mpyne 13y ago
contingencies 13y ago
False dichotomy.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
mtgx 13y ago
I think the future should and will be more "open" and more "transparent", whether the people in power like it or not.
ttrreeww 13y ago
Orwellian Nightmare.

100 points by gridscomputing 13y ago

mpyne 13y ago

The "Obama Administration" isn't prosecuting Manning, except insofar as has hasn't ordered the Commanding General at Ft. Meade sacked (which would be a much different kind of legal system interference). Likewise, (and I hate to sound like the ski instructor) if Manning hadn't wanted his trial to be "shrouded in secrecy" then he shouldn't have leaked classified information while under arms. Closing a trial is something that can be done in a court-martial, and that was true since far before Manning had raised his right hand to fight the war in Iraq and signed his DD-4. Even with the secrecy though, the article itself answers the question of how Manning might be sentenced to life imprisonment: The charge of "aiding the enemy" requires only that Manning knowingly leak the information knowing that it could be directly or indirectly provided to the enemy. If even one page of that had ended up in any AQ or Taliban hands that would seal the deal. As it turns out a bunch was found in Osama bin Laden's possession. Case closed, as far as that goes. I think it's important to note again that Snowden was quite clear in his initial interview that his actions were materially different from Manning's. He went so far as to note that he leaked only a few specific issues, and not just anything that he could grab, which he certainly could have done had he wished.

ekianjo 13y ago
Technically there was no "war" in Iraq. The US never officially declared war on Iraq. I might be arguing semantics, but that's probably relevant when you talk about the legality of someone's actions.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- mpyne 13y ago
  You are arguing semantics a bit, but it doesn't matter: Military force has been authorized by Congress against Al Qaeda and those who support and enable them (including the Taliban). As Manning was in the military when he did what he did, that aspect of it will not be in doubt.
jacquesm 13y ago
This all hinges on being able to declare individuals enemies in the same way that nation states were once enemies, and on being able to create a state of war without an actual opponent (war on terrorism) or on some pretext (Iraq). Iraq & Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with each other. The biggest enemy of the US at the moment would appear to be the US itself, goodwill built up over half a century has evaporated in a decade.
- mpyne 13y ago
  OBL was affiliated with AQ, was he not? While you're right that AQ is not a nation-state in the same way a country would be, it would be completely incorrect to say they're completely unorganized. For crying out loud, they require their "soldiers" to submit expense reports for travel! Someone in that organization has to receive and approve that expense report. I mentioned that Manning volunteered to fight the war in Iraq to point out that there is a certain lack of nobleness in his actions by your own standard. But the 'enemy' he aided was OBL as the article and myself both mentioned. Note that I never said OBL had anything to do with Iraq, or even that there was any justifiable reason for the U.S. to be in Iraq. But none of that gave Manning a reason to help AQ or the Taliban.
mtgx 13y ago
The US government classifies everything it doesn't want the public to know these days. So with that logic, they could say anything that leaks and was classified is "aiding the enemy". Since the enemy is basically the whole world now, that's might convenient. I think people need to understand "authoritarian logic" more. Because even behind the most ruthless dictators and most oppressive governments in the world there is a logic. They may want to keep the country "unified", or "secure", or whatever. Of course they aren't going to just go the public and say they are doing something "because we say so". That would make revolutions way too easy to happen. They need to give them some kind of "logic", no matter how ridiculous it sounds, to keep the people docile. That's why they still keep laws around. It's just that they pass whatever the laws they want, and then simply say "what you did was illegal". And that's how they keep the rest of the population docile, and making them think: "hey, maybe that guy deserved it - he shouldn't have broken the law". I mean just look at Aaron Swartz. Even he had quite a few critics, that thought he "shouldn't have broken the law", no matter how insane those laws were to begin with. I don't think most Americans realize it yet, but the US law is so complex, and has so many crazy laws, that they could arrest pretty much anyone over anything at this point.
- pekk 13y ago
  I feel obligated to point out that you are ranting so passionately that you repeatedly leave reason behind. It isn't accurate to say that any leak is "aiding the enemy" or "the enemy is the whole world". The US does not have a dictator. Laws are still passed by the legislature in the same old way they have been, and are not being applied ex post facto. It isn't actually true that "they could arrest pretty much anyone over anything at this point."
  - nickff 13y ago
    Law is different from legislation. While the latter is passed by the legislature, the former can grow and evolve without any democratic input, through regulation and court rulings.
    - mpyne 13y ago

contingencies 13y ago

False dichotomy.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

mtgx 13y ago

I think the future should and will be more "open" and more "transparent", whether the people in power like it or not.

ttrreeww 13y ago

Orwellian Nightmare.