3 ms·

> That doesn't seem to contradict anything I said. It literally contradicts everything you said. Manning would be a criminal, by our existing laws, for not rep

by fineman 11y ago

> That doesn't seem to contradict anything I said. It literally contradicts everything you said. Manning would be a criminal, by our existing laws, for not reporting the abuses. The attempt to report war crimes was ignored before the leaks. He tried, and was rebuffed, but his responsibility didn't end there. > He was mad at the Army. Irrelevant. Manning had a legal duty to - more than just refuse the orders - make sure the illegal actions stopped. Besides, can you imagine a mobster using this defense? "Sure, I kill people, but Bugsy only told you because he was angry I cut him out of some of the payment. If Bugsy wasn't a little bitch you never would have caught me." We'd laugh because it's irrelevant; a crime is a crime and an illegal order is an illegal order. > [link] "... Manning flipped a table during counseling ..." Oh my god! Small emotional outburst cancels importance of illegal conspiracy. I'm so sorry for the counsellor who had to witness that. It must be almost as traumatic as having your parents taken away and tortured or killed because of politically motivated false arrest. /s You're only talking about the messenger to distract from the message. What are you afraid of? What are you covering up for?

pc86 11y ago
Your tone is overly personal and counter-productive.
- fineman 11y ago
  The other poster's words contribute to putting a hero in jail for treason. Mine might not be productive because they're accusatory. I'll take that chance considering the stakes. How counter-productive would you feel this was if it was your family unlawfully detained? And, if you'll note, their words are personal. They attack and denigrate Manning specifically and by name, despite evidence. I only refer to them in the abstract because I'm referring to anyone who feels or says what they do. This is important - their words follow Manning forever, mine are only here in this thread, only attached to their hate speech. If they walk away from the lies, they walk away from my judgements. We shouldn't pretend that willful ignorance is a justifiable opinion that deserves respect - lies are lies, and these ones specifically are calculated to put an innocent in prison.
  - pc86 11y ago
    > I'll take that chance considering the stakes. Seriously? You're commenting on an internet forum. There are no "stakes." There is no reason not to be civil.
    - fineman 11y ago
      > You're commenting on an internet forum. There are no "stakes." Whoosh. At risk is ... some incivility. Maybe. And we're already there because of the slanderer. Attacking someone like that is cyber-bullying. To keep wrongly harassing someone with lasting, hurtful, and harmful messages. The reason not to be civil and/or ignore the troll is precisely that it doesn't work. Calling them on it builds a culture of challenging lies - making it safer (and more polite) for everyone in the future.
cookiecaper 11y ago
I'm objecting only to the assertion that Manning acted out of "tremendous conscience". The evidence clearly shows that this is false. I didn't say anything about the content he leaked (other than it doesn't pertain to the "crime" you're claiming he was "attempting to report"), whether he deserved his sentence, whether this is a valid legal defense, or anything else you're talking about here. Manning dumped docs not out of "tremendous conscience", but immature rage. That's a settled fact of record, and that's all my comment was meant to point out.
- fineman 11y ago
  > The evidence clearly shows [...] No, your source shows nothing of the sort. It doesn't even purport to address the issue of causality. There's nothing more than conjecture (anywhere) as to what the straw that broke Manning's conscience was, and it's irrelevant because it's just the straw. It's focusing on the messenger not the criminal. What we do know is that Manning tried to report war crimes, first to a commander and then to the media, and was unable to be heard and stop the crimes. This didn't end the duty to report them, it just exhausted the "proper" channels. > That's a settled fact of record, and that's all my comment was meant to point out. Your comment was meant to be the same baseless slander that all other baseless, factless, slander-filled posts are. There are sources that directly contradict you and yet you choose to continue. Your posts are part of a campaign of lies to destroy the life of an innocent - if not a hero.

by fineman 11y ago

pc86 11y ago

Your tone is overly personal and counter-productive.

fineman 11y ago
The other poster's words contribute to putting a hero in jail for treason. Mine might not be productive because they're accusatory. I'll take that chance considering the stakes. How counter-productive would you feel this was if it was your family unlawfully detained? And, if you'll note, their words are personal. They attack and denigrate Manning specifically and by name, despite evidence. I only refer to them in the abstract because I'm referring to anyone who feels or says what they do. This is important - their words follow Manning forever, mine are only here in this thread, only attached to their hate speech. If they walk away from the lies, they walk away from my judgements. We shouldn't pretend that willful ignorance is a justifiable opinion that deserves respect - lies are lies, and these ones specifically are calculated to put an innocent in prison.
- pc86 11y ago
  > I'll take that chance considering the stakes. Seriously? You're commenting on an internet forum. There are no "stakes." There is no reason not to be civil.
  - fineman 11y ago
    > You're commenting on an internet forum. There are no "stakes." Whoosh. At risk is ... some incivility. Maybe. And we're already there because of the slanderer. Attacking someone like that is cyber-bullying. To keep wrongly harassing someone with lasting, hurtful, and harmful messages. The reason not to be civil and/or ignore the troll is precisely that it doesn't work. Calling them on it builds a culture of challenging lies - making it safer (and more polite) for everyone in the future.

cookiecaper 11y ago

I'm objecting only to the assertion that Manning acted out of "tremendous conscience". The evidence clearly shows that this is false. I didn't say anything about the content he leaked (other than it doesn't pertain to the "crime" you're claiming he was "attempting to report"), whether he deserved his sentence, whether this is a valid legal defense, or anything else you're talking about here. Manning dumped docs not out of "tremendous conscience", but immature rage. That's a settled fact of record, and that's all my comment was meant to point out.

fineman 11y ago
> The evidence clearly shows [...] No, your source shows nothing of the sort. It doesn't even purport to address the issue of causality. There's nothing more than conjecture (anywhere) as to what the straw that broke Manning's conscience was, and it's irrelevant because it's just the straw. It's focusing on the messenger not the criminal. What we do know is that Manning tried to report war crimes, first to a commander and then to the media, and was unable to be heard and stop the crimes. This didn't end the duty to report them, it just exhausted the "proper" channels. > That's a settled fact of record, and that's all my comment was meant to point out. Your comment was meant to be the same baseless slander that all other baseless, factless, slander-filled posts are. There are sources that directly contradict you and yet you choose to continue. Your posts are part of a campaign of lies to destroy the life of an innocent - if not a hero.