Is Bradley Manning a hero, traitor or something more complex?

Well in this case I am torn between two of the opinions expressed in the article but this is the one I think best describes my views on this...

Heart in right place, but he still erred: I understand Pfc. Manning's desire to make Americans aware of faulty ethics in the country's foreign policy. I am not saying I would have reacted in the manner he did had I disagreed with information I was privy to. Was his illegal publishing of material to Wikileaks the correct way to blow that whistle? Probably not.
But action needs to be taken and not swept under the rug. Sooner or later, the government is going to have to realize it cannot get away with everything. This nation's citizens deserve the right to know how its government is conducting its business.
We will continue to see more like Manning and Snowden, as they are witness to absurdities in this government. And, when they unveil the truth, the government will have no choice but to attempt to throw them to the dogs and scream, "Spy!" Both sides should realize there are consequences to what they do.
— Michael Hedges enlisted in the U.S. Army in 2002. He served in the infantry from 2002 to 2010, when he was medically re-classed to Army Finance due to combat-related injuries. He served two tours of duty in Iraq in infantry and one tour in Afghanistan in Army Finance.
Click to expand...


I would add however that all nations citizens have a right to know how their government is conducting business.
 
He's a whistle blower who uncovered acts that were certainly immoral and possibly illegal at great personal risk, and as such should be recognised as a people's hero.

I believe that it wasn't so long ago that the US legal system was talking about introducing laws to protect whistle blowers who acted in the best public interest.
 
I agree with the verdict. I agree with the acquittal of the most serious charges as it struck me as obvious that Manning had no intention of aiding our enemies even if it did bring them a minor propaganda victory.

However, Manning was a soldier who was given the trust of keeping his nation's secrets. He violated that trust. All countries have their dirty laundry but it is not for individual soldiers to go on a moralistic crusade even with the best of intentions.

Manning could have made a good journalist but he's a lousy soldier. If his conscience was really bothering him that badly he could have spoken to someone, requested a transfer, or even request to be discharged. He had other options, but instead he chose to disclose classified information knowing if he got caught he'd be punished. He got caught.

One last thing. Manning faces 136 years in Prison (essentially a life senetence). Thats just what Hanssen, Pollard and Ames got and it doesn't sit right with me because these 3 were traitors. Ames and Hanssen sold out their country in order to get Rich (and got alot of people killed making their blood money) and Pollard decided that Israel was more important to him than the USA. Manning was an idiot who deserves a few years at Fort Leavenworth to rethink his decisions, but I don't think he's a traitor. I think his actions were misguided not treasonous which is why I would go easier on him.
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
I agree with the verdict. I agree with the acquittal of the most serious charges as it struck me as obvious that Manning had no intention of aiding our enemies even if it did bring them a minor propaganda victory.

However, Manning was a soldier who was given the trust of keeping his nation's secrets. He violated that trust. All countries have their dirty laundry but it is not for individual soldiers to go on a moralistic crusade even with the best of intentions.

Manning could have made a good journalist but he's a lousy soldier. If his conscience was really bothering him that badly he could have spoken to someone, requested a transfer, or even request to be discharged. He had other options, but instead he chose to disclose classified information knowing if he got caught he'd be punished. He got caught.

One last thing. Manning faces 136 years in Prison (essentially a life senetence). Thats just what Hanssen, Pollard and Ames got and it doesn't sit right with me because these 3 were traitors. Ames and Hanssen sold out their country in order to get Rich (and got alot of people killed making their blood money) and Pollard decided that Israel was more important to him than the USA. Manning was an idiot who deserves a few years at Fort Leavenworth to rethink his decisions, but I don't think he's a traitor. I think his actions were misguided not treasonous which is why I would go easier on him.
Click to expand...

Manning's problem was a difficult one though yes there are pathways for whistle-blowers and he could have gone to his superiors but what do you do when systems you have to use are the problem you have to report.

If you were to move this case to the public sector had Manning known that his employers were lying to the shareholders and carrying out illegal acts he would have been arrested for staying silent and regarded as a hero for coming forward why should this be any different?

senojekips said:
He's a whistle blower who uncovered acts that were certainly immoral and possibly illegal at great personal risk, and as such should be recognised as a people's hero.

I believe that it wasn't so long ago that the US legal system was talking about introducing laws to protect whistle blowers who acted in the best public interest.
Click to expand...

One of the opinions above regarded him as a "patriot" and that originally was the opinion I was going to back but I think he went over board on the volume of information he released.

Manning faced an impossible choice: Manning is a patriot of the highest order. The great 20th century philosopher, Albert Camus, once said that loving one's country means holding it to the highest standard. If that is the case, then any time someone reveals the wrong-doings of this country to the public, the whistleblower has exercised the highest form of patriotism.
Could Manning have gone about this in a different way? Perhaps. But he knew that every one of his superiors, straight to the very top of the chain, were willing to say nothing about these violations of human decency. Is it any wonder that he did not trust military justice to do the right thing? Would anyone know about any of this information had he not leaked it?
Manning may have broken the law, but the court verdict was right: Manning is not a traitor.
— Jack Camwell served in the U.S. Navy from 2002 to 2006 as a cryptologist on board the USS San Jacinto. He has direct experience and working knowledge of military intelligence.
Click to expand...
 
With governments being as corrupt as they are, without whistle blowers, the man in the street is essentially fuct.

The amount of material released was no doubt to demonstrate the otherwise unbelievable depth and breadth of the problem.

"If you found anyone else doing this they would lock them up and throw away the key, but if you discover the government doing it, they lock you up and throw away the key".
 
Last edited:
senojekips said:
With governments being as corrupt as they are, without whistle blowers, the man in the street is essentially fuct.

The amount of material released was no doubt to demonstrate the otherwise unbelievable depth and breadth of the problem.

"If you found anyone else doing this they would lock them up and throw away the key, but if you discover the government doing it, they lock you up and throw away the key".
Click to expand...

Sadly I can't even point at the Yanks and laugh over this as my government is in it up to its neck as well but with regards to Manning I find it rather sad that he will no doubt get the book thrown at him while the perpetrators of things like Haditha and Abu Ghraib pretty much walked away with a pat on the back.

I tend to think the difference between he and Snowden is that Snowden has focused solely on what he believes is the wrong doing where as Manning dumped data on anything and everything.

In the end all he is really guilty of since he was acquitted of aiding the enemy is embarrassing the government that is a lot of years in prison for doing what the opposition parties in democracies are paid to do.
 
Like you, I am in no doubt whatsoever that the Australian's are also up to their eyes in it. Personally I couldn't care less about the amount of embarrassing material released, the more the better. Had he have only released a few items, the spin doctors would have written it off as an oversight, or "once only" event. With a large volume released there is clearly no getting away from the gravity of the situation.

We see this type of "way out" regularly in the courts where they only charge a perpetrator guilty of multiple serious offences, with the single most important crime as this will put him away for life or whatever,... and then he is found not guilty of that particular crime on a technicality and can't have the others re introduced against him.

Yes, I particularly remember the ducking and weaving that went on over Abu Ghraib, where it was clearly obvious that the whole issue was condoned (encouraged) all the way to the top, yet some poor little female Private ends up being the scapegoat for the whole event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top