6 ms·

I Am Bradley Manning

194 points by volandovengo 13y ago

akiselev 13y ago
Nobel Peace Prize nominee? Citation? Nobel Laureates are expressly prohibited from talking about the nomination process until 50 years after the fact.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Eh, in fairness I've seen that done before in far less momentous circumstances. LT A: "Hey EM1, I'm putting you up for Sailor of the Quarter." EM1: "Uh thanks sir, but do you think I'll win?" LT A: "LOL, not a chance in Hell this cycle with MM1 also in the competition. But it'll help on your eval." A couple of months later, and so it comes to pass. "NOMINATED FOR SOQ" as an eval bullet.
- streptomycin 13y ago
  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57572488/bradley-manning-malala-among-nobel-peace-prize-nominees/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57572488/bradley-manning...
  - akiselev 13y ago
    Ah ok. That's very misleading. This is a pretty open call for nominations from the public. The actual people selected from that group that Laureates vote on is kept secret.
mpyne 13y ago
1. I like how they attack the strawman with their "aiding the enemy" means "the public is the enemy?!?" claim. They were suspiciously quiet about the news OBL (presumably an enemy) had information leaked by Pfc. Manning. But I suppose propaganda techniques are only wrong when it's the government or McDonald's, eh? 2. Manning has explicitly been removed from death penalty consideration earlier in the trial process. The prosecutor had to make that declaration already, so it's not something they can back out of. But I guess lies are only wrong when said by the government? 3. I'm not so sure that they would want him to take credit for the tens of thousands of persons killed in the aggregate from Arab Spring uprisings. Even if we consider the formation of democracies a benefit worth the price, that same exact logic would also justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq... 3a. "There is no evidence that anyone died as a result of the leaked information...". Contrast with "The information that Bradley gave to the public has been a catalyst for pro-democracy movements in the Arab world...". Alright guys, either have the cake, or eat the cake. If he truly catalyzed the Arab Spring then some number of persons died as a result of the leaked information. If no one died because of information he leaked then why try to claim credit for those uprisings?
- streptomycin 13y ago
  About 3... so you're saying that foreign aggression based on lies is morally equivalent to a local revolution as long as both ostensibly have some similarities in their end goals?
  - mpyne 13y ago
    You if you can claim with a straight face that you'd trade 40,000 lives and a despot for a democracy, then what would your reasoning be to quibble about whether the results were achieved by local revolution or foreign aggression? Do you think every Libyan who died was either for the regime or for the revolution? Many just wanted to live their lives and neither side spoke for them. What does a "local revolution" even mean in a place like Iraq with sectarian tension all across the country? Most of the Iraqis who died were killed by other Iraqis, not by the U.S. So even if a local revolution had started the conflict in Iraq, do you think that local revolution would have been able to speak for every group with an interest in the stakes?
    - mercurial 13y ago
      I don't know, what about the American Revolution? Was it morally wrong as well? You certainly have a point wrt to how many people's interest is represented in the Arab Spring. It looked like the Egyptian revolution was mostly due to urban population, for instance. But, well, you can't expect everybody to agree with a revolution, you will always find plenty of people who want to keep the old regime because it is (or they think it is) more closely aligned with their interests, and other people who won't take sides. That's still "local revolutions". That's not a conflict originally triggered by the mistakes of a third party, in order to further its own selfish interests.
  - ameister14 13y ago
    Since unless a revolution succeeds it's morally wrong, yes, they can be morally equivalent.
- jivatmanx 13y ago
  3:Democracy is self-rule by the people. If it's forced from outside, it's not a Democracy. Besides, Democracy promotion wasn't even the original rationale for the war. That was "Saddam helped do 9/11". Then it was WMD. Only when those failed was Democracy promotion used as the final fallback rationale. I'm not saying that Iraq cannot possibly be a legitimate Democracy, but it hasn't yet had the moment of national consensus that that real ones have had at their formation.
Systemic33 13y ago
Click bait title -1
- rbanffy 13y ago
  It's the name of the site.
johnnyanony 13y ago
i hope he gets the prize, he will be the first winner jailed by another peace prize winner, fucking hilarious.
- ethanazir 13y ago
  probably the last Peace prize awarded under an a priori illusion.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    How delightfully optimistic!
ChrisAntaki 13y ago
This issue is unifying a lot of people
subpixel 13y ago
FWIW I do believe Bradley Manning deserves moral and legal support. But this video is both propagandistic and vague. Like, except for 3 or 4 Hollywood celebrities, who are these people? And are they doing more than making a video?
gridmaths 13y ago
imho, great video, but please change the initial video screenshot. The pre-play screenshot seems a bit angry, and Im note sure how it ties in? In contrast, the content of the video I think was on-target, and thought provoking. A shot of manning being 'escorted' to trial, or just his face would be more suitable I think. or you could lead with the text slide "Is truth the Enemy? ..".. which is impactful. Thanks for doing this!
infinitone 13y ago
These people clearly missed the point of Manning's leaks. Its like how Christians worship Jesus instead of God. The point of the leaks was to shed light on the atrocities committed by the government not so that Manning is glorified into some sort of saint. I mean, I'm all for doing that- but wtf is the point when the same atrocities will happen again on some other day. You can argue that so that future leakers will get protection- well let me remind you there won't be any future leakers present anyway. The government will certainly start to smarten up about who they choose that pulls the trigger.
exposing_truth 13y ago
The site features another falsehood: "There is no evidence that anyone died as a result of the leaked information" Not true. The cables contained the actual names of Afghans who helped us fight the Taliban. Once their names were exposed, unredacted, via the Wikileaks calbes, "punishment" and death -- courtesy of the ascendant Taliban leaders -- came quickly. http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/07/28/murphy-rides-again/ http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/07/28/murphy-rides-... Wretchard continues his story: "Yet the dead are the lucky ones. The more unfortunate may wind up in a torture chamber similar to one found by Coldstream Guards. It features such amenities as chains to hang prisoners from walls. Not that the inmates would want to walk on the floor: that features broken glass. And there is limb amputation, kneecapping with an electric drill, eye gouging, bone-breaking or ritual rape to smash the will. Where the offender is not himself available punishment will be visited on his relatives." No, the antics of Manning and Assange were not without bad consequences.
- gruseom 13y ago
  This is a troll. I like to look at contrarian evidence, so I read the article. It contains zero evidence and is just a creepy piece of fantasy writing. Perhaps evidence does exist, but odds are we'd have heard about it by now, given how hard it's been sought (presumably by people who don't lack for media access).
  - expoze_truth 13y ago
    "Perhaps evidence does exist, but odds are we'd have heard about it by now" But that depends on how you -- and others -- filter your news sources. Many on one side of the political spectrum have no clue how far the IRS over-reached when investigating political enemies ... and they won't know, because they trust their sources of news and unfortunately don't look for contrarian viewpoints like you do. (btw: I'm not blaming you of the above; you've proven you seek diverse sources of information)
- alwaysinshade 13y ago
  Your post misses a key point: "WikiLeaks published a lengthy statement on its website Thursday morning, accusing the Guardian of "negligently [disclosing] top secret WikiLeaks’ decryption passwords to hundreds of thousands of unredacted unpublished US diplomatic cables." According to WikiLeaks, the disclosure of the password began months ago when Rusbridger's brother-in-law David Leigh, also the Guardian's investigations editor, learned the password and subsequently published the passwords in his book about WikiLeaks." http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/09/wikileaks-unredacted-cable-release-is-guardians-fault/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/09/wikileaks-unredac... http://www.wikileaks.org/Guardian-journalist-negligently.html http://www.wikileaks.org/Guardian-journalist-negligently.htm...

194 points by volandovengo 13y ago

Nobel Peace Prize nominee? Citation? Nobel Laureates are expressly prohibited from talking about the nomination process until 50 years after the fact.

mpyne 13y ago
Eh, in fairness I've seen that done before in far less momentous circumstances. LT A: "Hey EM1, I'm putting you up for Sailor of the Quarter." EM1: "Uh thanks sir, but do you think I'll win?" LT A: "LOL, not a chance in Hell this cycle with MM1 also in the competition. But it'll help on your eval." A couple of months later, and so it comes to pass. "NOMINATED FOR SOQ" as an eval bullet.
streptomycin 13y ago
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57572488/bradley-manning-malala-among-nobel-peace-prize-nominees/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57572488/bradley-manning...
- akiselev 13y ago
  Ah ok. That's very misleading. This is a pretty open call for nominations from the public. The actual people selected from that group that Laureates vote on is kept secret.

mpyne 13y ago

1. I like how they attack the strawman with their "aiding the enemy" means "the public is the enemy?!?" claim. They were suspiciously quiet about the news OBL (presumably an enemy) had information leaked by Pfc. Manning. But I suppose propaganda techniques are only wrong when it's the government or McDonald's, eh? 2. Manning has explicitly been removed from death penalty consideration earlier in the trial process. The prosecutor had to make that declaration already, so it's not something they can back out of. But I guess lies are only wrong when said by the government? 3. I'm not so sure that they would want him to take credit for the tens of thousands of persons killed in the aggregate from Arab Spring uprisings. Even if we consider the formation of democracies a benefit worth the price, that same exact logic would also justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq... 3a. "There is no evidence that anyone died as a result of the leaked information...". Contrast with "The information that Bradley gave to the public has been a catalyst for pro-democracy movements in the Arab world...". Alright guys, either have the cake, or eat the cake. If he truly catalyzed the Arab Spring then some number of persons died as a result of the leaked information. If no one died because of information he leaked then why try to claim credit for those uprisings?

streptomycin 13y ago
About 3... so you're saying that foreign aggression based on lies is morally equivalent to a local revolution as long as both ostensibly have some similarities in their end goals?
- mpyne 13y ago
  You if you can claim with a straight face that you'd trade 40,000 lives and a despot for a democracy, then what would your reasoning be to quibble about whether the results were achieved by local revolution or foreign aggression? Do you think every Libyan who died was either for the regime or for the revolution? Many just wanted to live their lives and neither side spoke for them. What does a "local revolution" even mean in a place like Iraq with sectarian tension all across the country? Most of the Iraqis who died were killed by other Iraqis, not by the U.S. So even if a local revolution had started the conflict in Iraq, do you think that local revolution would have been able to speak for every group with an interest in the stakes?
  - mercurial 13y ago
    I don't know, what about the American Revolution? Was it morally wrong as well? You certainly have a point wrt to how many people's interest is represented in the Arab Spring. It looked like the Egyptian revolution was mostly due to urban population, for instance. But, well, you can't expect everybody to agree with a revolution, you will always find plenty of people who want to keep the old regime because it is (or they think it is) more closely aligned with their interests, and other people who won't take sides. That's still "local revolutions". That's not a conflict originally triggered by the mistakes of a third party, in order to further its own selfish interests.
- ameister14 13y ago
  Since unless a revolution succeeds it's morally wrong, yes, they can be morally equivalent.
jivatmanx 13y ago
3:Democracy is self-rule by the people. If it's forced from outside, it's not a Democracy. Besides, Democracy promotion wasn't even the original rationale for the war. That was "Saddam helped do 9/11". Then it was WMD. Only when those failed was Democracy promotion used as the final fallback rationale. I'm not saying that Iraq cannot possibly be a legitimate Democracy, but it hasn't yet had the moment of national consensus that that real ones have had at their formation.

Systemic33 13y ago

Click bait title -1

rbanffy 13y ago
It's the name of the site.

johnnyanony 13y ago

i hope he gets the prize, he will be the first winner jailed by another peace prize winner, fucking hilarious.

ethanazir 13y ago
probably the last Peace prize awarded under an a priori illusion.
- mikeash 13y ago
  How delightfully optimistic!

ChrisAntaki 13y ago

This issue is unifying a lot of people

subpixel 13y ago

FWIW I do believe Bradley Manning deserves moral and legal support. But this video is both propagandistic and vague. Like, except for 3 or 4 Hollywood celebrities, who are these people? And are they doing more than making a video?

gridmaths 13y ago

imho, great video, but please change the initial video screenshot. The pre-play screenshot seems a bit angry, and Im note sure how it ties in? In contrast, the content of the video I think was on-target, and thought provoking. A shot of manning being 'escorted' to trial, or just his face would be more suitable I think. or you could lead with the text slide "Is truth the Enemy? ..".. which is impactful. Thanks for doing this!

infinitone 13y ago

These people clearly missed the point of Manning's leaks. Its like how Christians worship Jesus instead of God. The point of the leaks was to shed light on the atrocities committed by the government not so that Manning is glorified into some sort of saint. I mean, I'm all for doing that- but wtf is the point when the same atrocities will happen again on some other day. You can argue that so that future leakers will get protection- well let me remind you there won't be any future leakers present anyway. The government will certainly start to smarten up about who they choose that pulls the trigger.

exposing_truth 13y ago

The site features another falsehood: "There is no evidence that anyone died as a result of the leaked information" Not true. The cables contained the actual names of Afghans who helped us fight the Taliban. Once their names were exposed, unredacted, via the Wikileaks calbes, "punishment" and death -- courtesy of the ascendant Taliban leaders -- came quickly. http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/07/28/murphy-rides-again/ http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/07/28/murphy-rides-... Wretchard continues his story: "Yet the dead are the lucky ones. The more unfortunate may wind up in a torture chamber similar to one found by Coldstream Guards. It features such amenities as chains to hang prisoners from walls. Not that the inmates would want to walk on the floor: that features broken glass. And there is limb amputation, kneecapping with an electric drill, eye gouging, bone-breaking or ritual rape to smash the will. Where the offender is not himself available punishment will be visited on his relatives." No, the antics of Manning and Assange were not without bad consequences.

gruseom 13y ago
This is a troll. I like to look at contrarian evidence, so I read the article. It contains zero evidence and is just a creepy piece of fantasy writing. Perhaps evidence does exist, but odds are we'd have heard about it by now, given how hard it's been sought (presumably by people who don't lack for media access).
- expoze_truth 13y ago
  "Perhaps evidence does exist, but odds are we'd have heard about it by now" But that depends on how you -- and others -- filter your news sources. Many on one side of the political spectrum have no clue how far the IRS over-reached when investigating political enemies ... and they won't know, because they trust their sources of news and unfortunately don't look for contrarian viewpoints like you do. (btw: I'm not blaming you of the above; you've proven you seek diverse sources of information)
alwaysinshade 13y ago
Your post misses a key point: "WikiLeaks published a lengthy statement on its website Thursday morning, accusing the Guardian of "negligently [disclosing] top secret WikiLeaks’ decryption passwords to hundreds of thousands of unredacted unpublished US diplomatic cables." According to WikiLeaks, the disclosure of the password began months ago when Rusbridger's brother-in-law David Leigh, also the Guardian's investigations editor, learned the password and subsequently published the passwords in his book about WikiLeaks." http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/09/wikileaks-unredacted-cable-release-is-guardians-fault/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/09/wikileaks-unredac... http://www.wikileaks.org/Guardian-journalist-negligently.html http://www.wikileaks.org/Guardian-journalist-negligently.htm...