(full site)
Fark.com

Try out our new mobile site!


Back To Main
   3 Nobel Laureates seem to think the U.S. should give a damn about what they think, slam the U.S. over Bradley Manning case

17 Nov 2012 02:02 PM   |   7717 clicks   |   Russia Today
Showing 1-50 of 287 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
St_Francis_P     
Yeah. You see guys, if you have a security clearance and give away classified material, some people are going to have a problem with that.

17 Nov 2012 09:31 AM
Happy Hours     
So says RT - not even going to click on the Russian version of Fox News....well, calling RT the Russian version of Fox News is too nive. They're a state-run news organization.

They're more slanted than CCTV (the Chinese state-run news organization).

17 Nov 2012 10:10 AM
NewportBarGuy    [TotalFark]  
I'm glad he did what he did because this nation needed a kick in the ass about the actual havoc and misery that war inflicts. However, he must serve time for what he did. If we are a nation of laws, he must. I would never advocate reckless publication as he did unless I felt we had become so jaded. Hell, most people don't even know we still have a war going on in Afghanistan. We're completely disconnected from reality.

He still has to serve time. He knew the penalties for what he did. I hope it was worth it to him.

17 Nov 2012 10:32 AM
vygramul    [TotalFark]  
Fark the Nobel Laureates and fark Bradley Manning. You sign away a lot of rights when you accept a security clearance. Don't like it? Don't ask for it.

17 Nov 2012 12:47 PM
Mr. Eugenides     
I agree with them, I too am appaled Manning hasn't been shot yet.

/DNRTFA

17 Nov 2012 02:05 PM
CruJones     
He can be morally right and legally wrong simultaneously. You simply can't establish the precedent that leaking classified materials is OK. Being a martyr comes with certain downsides.

17 Nov 2012 02:07 PM
CygnusDarius     
In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying strips of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway.

17 Nov 2012 02:07 PM
iheartscotch     
Yeah, if he done it; he committed high treason. If he felt that making the information public was for the greater good, great; he still committed high treason. If it is necessary for a democracy to be transparent, good; he still committed high treason.

17 Nov 2012 02:08 PM
bhcompy     

St_Francis_P: Yeah. You see guys, if you have a security clearance and give away classified material, some people are going to have a problem with that.


^

17 Nov 2012 02:08 PM
downtownkid     
I'd like to slam the Nobel Committee for politicizing, and thus cheapening, the award itself.

17 Nov 2012 02:10 PM
FloydA     

Mr. Eugenides: I agree with them, I too am appaled Manning hasn't been shot yet.

/DNRTFA


Look, I hate the NY Giants as much as the next guy, but that's a bit harsh.

17 Nov 2012 02:11 PM
TheZorker     
If general, if Nobel winners of the Peace Prize are for it, I feel I should probably be againsti t.

It doesn't work 100% of the time, but it's the way to bet.

17 Nov 2012 02:11 PM
encyclopediaplushuman    [TotalFark]  

iheartscotch: Yeah, if he done it; he committed high treason. If he felt that making the information public was for the greater good, great; he still committed high treason. If it is necessary for a democracy to be transparent, good; he still committed high treason.


So did the Founding Fathers, sure no American is going to condemn them for that. A "moral imperative" they would said the Fathers had to break free of the tyrannical Great Britain and its atrocious restriction. But now that it's 2012, and somebody tries to do the same thing under a moral imperative, they condemn him. It reminds me of that MIT prank that will get a young adult many years in prison when it should have only gotten a laugh. Back in 1776, committing high treason under a moral imperative was lauded, now it is condemned. Back thirty years ago, pulling a college prank was lauded and respected, now it gets you terrorist charges.

17 Nov 2012 02:13 PM
Silverstaff     

vygramul: Fark the Nobel Laureates and fark Bradley Manning. You sign away a lot of rights when you accept a security clearance. Don't like it? Don't ask for it.


They even make it crystal clear what you are signing away. He had an agreement with the US Government to keep state secrets, and he broke it.

If he wanted to be a whistleblower, there are legal provisions for that. He would have been legally justified taking it to any Inspector Generals office in the military,or if he didn't trust anybody in the military, he legally could have taken it to the office of a Congressman for a Congressional inquiry.

Handing over a quarter million documents of state secrets, which he swore to protect on pain of dire consequences to a foreign national to be dumped on the open Internet was almost the dumbest thing he could have done. 

He has earned how he is being treated, no mercy to him.

17 Nov 2012 02:13 PM
uttertosh     

CruJones: Being a martyr comes with certain downsides.


Martyrs are made. America is turning this guy into one by treating him this way. He will either be branded traitor or martyr, depending on which side of the fence you stand.

I'm seeing martyr, as I support what he did and why he did it. You may see domestic terrorist/traitor, as you support everything american, including war atrocities.

17 Nov 2012 02:15 PM
davidphogan     

Happy Hours: So says RT - not even going to click on the Russian version of Fox News....well, calling RT the Russian version of Fox News is too nive. They're a state-run news organization.

They're more slanted than CCTV (the Chinese state-run news organization).


They just want to distract the rest of the world from the Pussy Riot thing.

17 Nov 2012 02:16 PM
signaljammer     
More clearly serviced the cause of peace than when BO got his.

17 Nov 2012 02:17 PM
halfof33     
Just about everything they say is a lie. He is not a whistleblower, he had no clue what he was releasing.

He didn't do it to blow the whistle, he did it because he was having a major mental breakdown and wanted to take it out on the Army.

He is not being held in tortuous conditions, he has been in a medium security brig for like 18 months, which is 1/100th as stressful as being on the frontline. The farker actually had the lack of balls to complain about a scratchy blanket and the lack of a pillow

Save your farking propaganda.

17 Nov 2012 02:17 PM
downtownkid     

uttertosh: CruJones: Being a martyr comes with certain downsides.

Martyrs are made. America is turning this guy into one by treating him this way. He will either be branded traitor or martyr, depending on which side of the fence you stand.

I'm seeing martyr, as I support what he did and why he did it. You may see domestic terrorist/traitor, as you support everything american, including war atrocities.



It is entirely possible to oppose war atrocities and condemn his actions at the same time. You are allowing your ideology to skew your viewpoint so drastically that others won't take you seriously. Good luck with that.

17 Nov 2012 02:19 PM
CasperImproved     

NewportBarGuy: I'm glad he did what he did because this nation needed a kick in the ass about the actual havoc and misery that war inflicts. However, he must serve time for what he did. If we are a nation of laws, he must. I would never advocate reckless publication as he did unless I felt we had become so jaded. Hell, most people don't even know we still have a war going on in Afghanistan. We're completely disconnected from reality.

He still has to serve time. He knew the penalties for what he did. I hope it was worth it to him.


So what should any government do to prevent their secrets from escaping by some stupid PFC type individual? I would be okay with 24 hour segregation from all but the guards for the rest of his life with only a mandated healthy diet and health care available as something he can receive. No music, no video, no lawyers, no letters, no calls, no library. Just the rest of his life to consider how badly he failed every one he cared about. Not even an hour per day in a bricked-up yard for exercise and sun light.

If you hold and take responsibility for secrets that could potentially cost the lives of others, you have to pay for your absence of good morals in keeping those secrets in tact. When you own those responsibilities... you take responsibility for the lives and well being of others, their families, their friends, and their country.

There is no exception. You have NO honor and no right to life when you put other's lives at eminent risk. In the least he should earn life in prison in isolation.

17 Nov 2012 02:20 PM
zerkalo     
News: Huffington Post RT readers are unaware they were reading Kremlin propaganda

17 Nov 2012 02:20 PM
GoldenMetalRaven     
This 

/sometimes I think that peace price winners shouldn't have a kill list.

17 Nov 2012 02:21 PM
LeglessDog     
Ending War = Ending Poverty = Never gonna happen

Utopian Hogwash

17 Nov 2012 02:21 PM
The Voice of Doom    [TotalFark]  
This thread looks like they have a point.

17 Nov 2012 02:22 PM
WhyteRaven74     

CasperImproved: In the least he should earn life in prison in isolation.


So he should be tortured then? Cause that's what your recommending, a punishment that is torture.

17 Nov 2012 02:22 PM
jake_lex    [TotalFark]  

NewportBarGuy: I'm glad he did what he did because this nation needed a kick in the ass about the actual havoc and misery that war inflicts. However, he must serve time for what he did. If we are a nation of laws, he must. I would never advocate reckless publication as he did unless I felt we had become so jaded. Hell, most people don't even know we still have a war going on in Afghanistan. We're completely disconnected from reality.

He still has to serve time. He knew the penalties for what he did. I hope it was worth it to him.


Both Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr., in their treatises on civil disobedience, say that if you break a law, even if it's unjust, you must accept the punishment for doing so. So I have no problem with Manning going to prison for what he did.

The problem I've always had with what Manning did was that he just grabbed a bunch of shiat and threw it out there, with little to no regard for what damage it could do or who could be hurt by the release. Contrast that to Daniel Ellsburg, who carefully considered if he should or shouldn't leak the Pentagon Papers, and worked with real journalists, not an attention whore with a website, to get it out there.

17 Nov 2012 02:22 PM
edmo    [TotalFark]  
For those who whine Obama is a liberal, this is a perfect article to demonstrate that the world sees him as a conservative.

Read it again.

17 Nov 2012 02:23 PM
david_gaithersburg     

Mr. Eugenides: I agree with them, I too am appaled Manning hasn't been shot yet.

/DNRTFA


^^^^^^^^^^^
This. I've even volunteered to put the bullet in his head, and I'll pay for the bullet.

17 Nov 2012 02:24 PM
Amishrabbit     
Pot, meet kettle, Russia Today.

At least we don't poison our political opponents with Polonium.

17 Nov 2012 02:25 PM
James F. Campbell     
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.

17 Nov 2012 02:28 PM
TheOther     

GoldenMetalRaven: /sometimes I think that peace price winners shouldn't have a kill list.


Maybe heads of state shouldn't be eligible. TR's list included most kinds of Africa's large mammals and gutting Panama like a fish.

17 Nov 2012 02:28 PM
Snarfangel    [TotalFark]  

Happy Hours: So says RT - not even going to click on the Russian version of Fox News....well, calling RT the Russian version of Fox News is too nive. They're a state-run news organization.

They're more slanted than CCTV (the Chinese state-run news organization).


And not nearly as entertaining as the Canadian news organization, SCTV.

17 Nov 2012 02:30 PM
iheartscotch     

encyclopediaplushuman: iheartscotch: Yeah, if he done it; he committed high treason. If he felt that making the information public was for the greater good, great; he still committed high treason. If it is necessary for a democracy to be transparent, good; he still committed high treason.

So did the Founding Fathers, sure no American is going to condemn them for that. A "moral imperative" they would said the Fathers had to break free of the tyrannical Great Britain and its atrocious restriction. But now that it's 2012, and somebody tries to do the same thing under a moral imperative, they condemn him. It reminds me of that MIT prank that will get a young adult many years in prison when it should have only gotten a laugh. Back in 1776, committing high treason under a moral imperative was lauded, now it is condemned. Back thirty years ago, pulling a college prank was lauded and respected, now it gets you terrorist charges.


Yes, the founding fathers committed high treason. But, there is a big difference between George Washington and Bradley Manning.

Moral imperative is a grey area. If I witness a crime, such as jay-walking, it is my moral imperative to call the police, even if it isn't much of a crime.

Claiming a moral imperative; the French killed in the neighborhood of 16k-40k people. Where they right to rebel against the French aristocracy? Yes. Were they right to spend the next decade murdering their fellow countrymen?

Was the United States doing some hinky stuff? Probably. Was Bradley Manning right to expose that to the world, potentially endangering countless American lives?

17 Nov 2012 02:30 PM
BSABSVR     

david_gaithersburg: Mr. Eugenides: I agree with them, I too am appaled Manning hasn't been shot yet.

/DNRTFA

^^^^^^^^^^^
This. I've even volunteered to put the bullet in his head, and I'll pay for the bullet.


Ohh, look at all the Internet toughness.


/It's so easy to talk about how farking badass you are in relation to a situation that will literally never happen

17 Nov 2012 02:30 PM
detritus     

edmo: For those who whine Obama is a liberal, this is a perfect article to demonstrate that the world sees him as a conservative.

Read it again.


Neo-conservative. Big, big difference.

17 Nov 2012 02:33 PM
Marine1     
upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size


"I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country."- Nathan Hale's mindset, 1776

upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size


"I honestly didn't think that my comrades would torment me if I betrayed them"- Bradley Manning's mindset, 2012

Boy have we gone down hill.

17 Nov 2012 02:39 PM
CasperImproved     

WhyteRaven74: CasperImproved: In the least he should earn life in prison in isolation.

So he should be tortured then? Cause that's what your recommending, a punishment that is torture.


No...

Actually I think the punishment should fit the crime.

He want's to spill secrets he was entrusted with that endanger the lives of others? I think it only fair he never has inter-action with others ever again, or the comforts of those that have deserved them.

17 Nov 2012 02:41 PM
give me doughnuts     

encyclopediaplushuman: iheartscotch: Yeah, if he done it; he committed high treason. If he felt that making the information public was for the greater good, great; he still committed high treason. If it is necessary for a democracy to be transparent, good; he still committed high treason.

So did the Founding Fathers, sure no American is going to condemn them for that. A "moral imperative" they would said the Fathers had to break free of the tyrannical Great Britain and its atrocious restriction. But now that it's 2012, and somebody tries to do the same thing under a moral imperative, they condemn him. It reminds me of that MIT prank that will get a young adult many years in prison when it should have only gotten a laugh. Back in 1776, committing high treason under a moral imperative was lauded, now it is condemned. Back thirty years ago, pulling a college prank was lauded and respected, now it gets you terrorist charges.


If you want to free the North American colonies from the tyrannical rule of the English monarchy in 2012, go right ahead.

The only reason that the high treason in 1776 was lauded, is because the treasoners won.

17 Nov 2012 02:41 PM
CygnusDarius     
I'm guessing the Founding Fathers should also had to be rounded up and shot, how dare they defy the Crown.

17 Nov 2012 02:42 PM
internetuser1080     
wish i could say i was shocked by the apologist blowhards willing to overlook egregious moral and ethical offenses to protect the military. just because something is codified and law and you sign up to do a job doesn't mean you give up all personal responsibility. Manning is more courageous and patriotic than the rest of the grunts who go along with war crimes due to the exact same mentality expressed by the armchair warriors on Fark: you sign up for war-crimes, what did you expect? stop worshiping the military, it's disgusting.

17 Nov 2012 02:42 PM
iheartscotch     

give me doughnuts: encyclopediaplushuman: iheartscotch: Yeah, if he done it; he committed high treason. If he felt that making the information public was for the greater good, great; he still committed high treason. If it is necessary for a democracy to be transparent, good; he still committed high treason.

So did the Founding Fathers, sure no American is going to condemn them for that. A "moral imperative" they would said the Fathers had to break free of the tyrannical Great Britain and its atrocious restriction. But now that it's 2012, and somebody tries to do the same thing under a moral imperative, they condemn him. It reminds me of that MIT prank that will get a young adult many years in prison when it should have only gotten a laugh. Back in 1776, committing high treason under a moral imperative was lauded, now it is condemned. Back thirty years ago, pulling a college prank was lauded and respected, now it gets you terrorist charges.

If you want to free the North American colonies from the tyrannical rule of the English monarchy in 2012, go right ahead.

The only reason that the high treason in 1776 was lauded, is because the treasoners won.


Also, Bradley Manning is less George Washington and more Benedict Arnold.

17 Nov 2012 02:46 PM
CygnusDarius     

internetuser1080: wish i could say i was shocked by the apologist blowhards willing to overlook egregious moral and ethical offenses to protect the military. just because something is codified and law and you sign up to do a job doesn't mean you give up all personal responsibility. Manning is more courageous and patriotic than the rest of the grunts who go along with war crimes due to the exact same mentality expressed by the armchair warriors on Fark: you sign up for war-crimes, what did you expect? stop worshiping the military, it's disgusting.


This.

17 Nov 2012 02:48 PM
Pazuzu_the_gargoyle     

James F. Campbell: Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.


Strong evidence exists that he broke the law and due process is being followed. If you think that isn't justice, you're living in a fantasy world.

Manning was having a breakdown so he decided to do a mass dump of classified material. Not material specific to some injustice, just any material he could get his hands on. That has a great deal of impact in parts of the world that combat isn't even happening in.

Thoreau was mostly upset about slavery, his civil disobedience was failing to pay taxes, and his position was well thought out and expressed. While there are superficial parallels, Manning and Thoreau are quite different.

17 Nov 2012 02:50 PM
CasperImproved     

give me doughnuts: encyclopediaplushuman: iheartscotch: Yeah, if he done it; he committed high treason. If he felt that making the information public was for the greater good, great; he still committed high treason. If it is necessary for a democracy to be transparent, good; he still committed high treason.

So did the Founding Fathers, sure no American is going to condemn them for that. A "moral imperative" they would said the Fathers had to break free of the tyrannical Great Britain and its atrocious restriction. But now that it's 2012, and somebody tries to do the same thing under a moral imperative, they condemn him. It reminds me of that MIT prank that will get a young adult many years in prison when it should have only gotten a laugh. Back in 1776, committing high treason under a moral imperative was lauded, now it is condemned. Back thirty years ago, pulling a college prank was lauded and respected, now it gets you terrorist charges.

If you want to free the North American colonies from the tyrannical rule of the English monarchy in 2012, go right ahead.

The only reason that the high treason in 1776 was lauded, is because the treasoners won.


Apples to oranges.

Might as well compare horses to cars for their transportation capabilities.

Motivations may not have changed, but the variables that determine what happens after the fact have gone from a spanking, to total annihilation.

I could say "blah, blah, blah", but the point is you have to be even more responsible for your actions today then you did back in the 1700's. Back then you only risked local and regional lives. Today, treason can have global effects quite easily.

17 Nov 2012 02:51 PM
give me doughnuts     

iheartscotch: Also, Bradley Manning is less George Washington and more Benedict Arnold.


Benedict Arnold was a rather heroic, if egocentric, battlefield commander. He just felt he wasn't get the recognition and accolades he deserved, and that others were taking crediti for his accomplishments. He felt betrayed by his own colleagues, that he was justified in going over to the British.

Benedict Arnold is far superior to Bradley Manning..

17 Nov 2012 02:53 PM
miniflea     

give me doughnuts: encyclopediaplushuman: iheartscotch: Yeah, if he done it; he committed high treason. If he felt that making the information public was for the greater good, great; he still committed high treason. If it is necessary for a democracy to be transparent, good; he still committed high treason.

So did the Founding Fathers, sure no American is going to condemn them for that. A "moral imperative" they would said the Fathers had to break free of the tyrannical Great Britain and its atrocious restriction. But now that it's 2012, and somebody tries to do the same thing under a moral imperative, they condemn him. It reminds me of that MIT prank that will get a young adult many years in prison when it should have only gotten a laugh. Back in 1776, committing high treason under a moral imperative was lauded, now it is condemned. Back thirty years ago, pulling a college prank was lauded and respected, now it gets you terrorist charges.

If you want to free the North American colonies from the tyrannical rule of the English monarchy in 2012, go right ahead.

The only reason that the high treason in 1776 was lauded, is because the treasoners won.


Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason.

17 Nov 2012 02:55 PM
Vectron     
RT = Radio Free Europe for Americans

17 Nov 2012 02:56 PM
Sargun     

internetuser1080: wish i could say i was shocked by the apologist blowhards willing to overlook egregious moral and ethical offenses to protect the military. just because something is codified and law and you sign up to do a job doesn't mean you give up all personal responsibility. Manning is more courageous and patriotic than the rest of the grunts who go along with war crimes due to the exact same mentality expressed by the armchair warriors on Fark: you sign up for war-crimes, what did you expect? stop worshiping the military, it's disgusting.


I'm sorry, but Traitor McTraity here didn't do jack shiat. He leaked nothing of consequence, disobeyed no direct orders to harm others, and instead whined about how he's getting punished for breaking the law.

17 Nov 2012 02:57 PM
Type random string here     
Marine1:

"I honestly didn't think that my comrades would torment me if I betrayed them"- Bradley Manning's mindset, 2012

Boy have we gone down hill.


I'm glad to hear that you agree with the rest of the world when you say that Bradley Manning is being tortured.

17 Nov 2012 02:58 PM
Marshal805     
The soldiers in the video that Manning leaked were returning fire, but you'd never know because it was edited.

17 Nov 2012 02:59 PM
Showing 1-50 of 287 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined