View Full Version : bradley manning
so i keep seeing stupid people posting pro manning crap . as far as im concerned the man is a traitor but maybe im not seeing it correctly .
your thoughts ?
Boadie30
06-10-2013, 07:20
I think he waived his fairy wand..[fag]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning
"He was by all accounts unhappy and isolated. Because of the army's "Don't ask, don't tell (http://www.ar-15.co/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell)" policy (known as DADT, which was repealed in September 2011), he was not allowed to be openly gay, though he apparently made no secret of it; his friends said he kept a fairy wand on his desk."
Traitor sounds about right.
Sent from my Otterbox Defended Tactical iPhone using High Capacity "Clips".
10mm-man
06-10-2013, 08:20
so i keep seeing stupid people posting pro manning crap . as far as im concerned the man is a traitor but maybe im not seeing it correctly .
your thoughts ?
OOOPS= wrong guy. Comment erased,,,
Yes- Traitor
OOOPS= wrong guy. Comment erased,,,
Yes- Traitor
I still have no idea what was in these diplomatic cables that he leaked to Assange. Without knowing the contents, I can't weigh in really.
Love that guy in China tho, that gave proof of what we've all been saying for years re: the NSA.
lets see , the guy joined the united states military voluntarily and then voluntarily leaked u.s. military info . sorry but thats a clear cut case of traitor not whistle blower . would call him a spy but he did not sell the info to anyone . as i see it he just did it to undermine the u.s government and put our military in harms way . weather he understood the gravity of what he did or not ,he still did it ! imo if even one u.s. citizen was killed because of the info then it should be a quick trip to the gallows for manning .
lowspeed_highdrag
06-10-2013, 09:21
Did anyone actually see the video of the Apache pilots killing the Reuters reporters that Manning leaked? Seems like some important government insight was needed...
Is the guy who leaked the info about PRISM a traitor? What about the ATF agent who leaked the info about Fast and Furious? What about the IRS agent who leaked the info about the Tea Party refusal scandals?
RblDiver
06-10-2013, 09:24
Is the guy who leaked the info about PRISM a traitor? What about the ATF agent who leaked the info about Fast and Furious? What about the IRS agent who leaked the info about the Tea Party refusal scandals?
The way I see it, Manning's intent was to harm the US (info included names of people translating for us, etc, things that could be used by, say, the Taliban). The others you mentioned were exposing internal issues (I don't think knowing that the IRS targeted the Tea Party really helps the Taliban in any way).
That said, I'm conflicted about this guy going to Hong Kong. On the one hand, he has helped expose a huge issue, but on the other, he DID do it in a bad way. So the jury's still out on that one.
Did anyone actually see the video of the Apache pilots killing the Reuters reporters that Manning leaked? Seems like some important government insight was needed...
Is the guy who leaked the info about PRISM a traitor? What about the ATF agent who leaked the info about Fast and Furious? What about the IRS agent who leaked the info about the Tea Party refusal scandals?its not like the guy leaked about 1 particular injustice . he put almost 1,000,000 documents out there without inspection . is that a leak or just someone trying to f*ck things up ?
There is a HUGE difference between a leak and a whistle blower. You purposely put out classified information that puts our country or citizens into more danger, you are a traitor. It does not matter if the information "leaked" was to stop the US government from doing something you thought was wrong or illegal. There are ways of getting information released, reviewed, analyzed without making it public information.
lowspeed_highdrag
06-10-2013, 09:38
Manning may very well be a traitor, and I believe that he is. But my point is that not everyone who leaks negative things about the .gov is a traitor.
my point is that not everyone who leaks negative things about the .gov is a traitor. on this fact i agree . like everything in life i try to pass judgment on a case by case basses . in this case let the little weasel be some inmates sex toy [bad-banana]for awhile before he hangs [Hang]!
Did anyone actually see the video of the Apache pilots killing the Reuters reporters that Manning leaked? Seems like some important government insight was needed...
Is the guy who leaked the info about PRISM a traitor? What about the ATF agent who leaked the info about Fast and Furious? What about the IRS agent who leaked the info about the Tea Party refusal scandals?
I've seen so many Apache videos, and it's damn near impossible, on the surface, to tell exactly what they are targeting (although weapons are clearly visible in most, and I do know the sea of red tape a pilot has to wade through to get permission to fire)... Manning is surely a traitor and deserves to die a traitor's death. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Try him, if guilty (I don't see how they couldn't) and then pull out the old George S. Patton ivory handle 1911 and send that PVT to the final judge.
As far as the NSA whistle blower- He saw the program as being potentially unconstitutional, not treasonous at all. ATF and IRS whistle blowers? They deserve a medal.
...not everyone who leaks negative things about the .gov is a traitor...
Everyone who leaks classified information is a traitor, there is no gray area! However, all negative information may or may not be classified.
Everyone who leaks classified information is a traitor, there is no gray area!
In that case, some traitors do the nation a great service.
In that case, some traitors do the nation a great service.
And I agree with you on that point as well.
In that case, some traitors do the nation a great service.
As conflicted as this sounds, I agree with it.
I don't believe a government should need to keep secrets from its people. I do believe a people has every right to keep secrets from its government.
Violating a nation's laws because it's "right" doesn't really matter, it's still breaking the law, and those who do it should be held accountable for their actions. It is then up to the people to change the laws they don't agree with.
--gos
lowspeed_highdrag
06-10-2013, 10:08
Everyone who leaks classified information is a traitor, there is no gray area! However, all negative information may or may not be classified.
Are you serious?
Are you serious?
Yes, there are laws against releasing classified information. Those laws are necessary and you have either broken them or you have not. The mess we find ourselves in as a country is because there are no absolutes. Everything is open to interpretation and "considering the situation", values clarification hogwash. You are either obeying the laws, or you are not. Breaking a law for the right reason is still breaking the law.
Our court systems were set up with the concept that there is a conviction AND a penalty phase. The penalty phase is where the sentencing can utilize discretion. However, our legal system has sunken to the point where the charging and trial phase are using "intent" discretion where it was never intended to be. Take a law history class and it is easy to see that where we are is nowhere close to the original intent of the US justice system.
Can I conceive of a situation where breaking a law, and taking the risk of being sentenced as a traitor might be beneficial, even preferable? Sure. But that is a different discussion.
BushMasterBoy
06-10-2013, 10:50
After reading some of the wikileaks, I think the information disclosed was more embarrassing than damaging. Some of the diplomatic cables seem to be written by imbeciles. With Hillary Clinton in charge of that department what did we expect? With that said, a sentence of dishonorable discharge and time served. We need to concentrate our resources on helping wounded warriors, installation security etc. A good IT program should be able to secure this info, but I think the .gov is too busy tapping all our phone calls and reading our emails. Is Manning really any worse than the military generals allowing US citizens communications to be intercepted?
Aloha_Shooter
06-10-2013, 10:53
I don't give a damn about his sexual preferences except if they led him to his treasonous actions. Asswipe is a traitor pure and simple and should have been put in front of a firing squad years ago.
Aloha_Shooter
06-10-2013, 10:56
Is the guy who leaked the info about PRISM a traitor? What about the ATF agent who leaked the info about Fast and Furious? What about the IRS agent who leaked the info about the Tea Party refusal scandals?
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. My understanding was there was no "leak" from the IRS ... someone made a mistake and sent an e-mail with the info uncorking the proof. The IG report to Congress was required and therefore neither a leak nor whistle-blowing.
Yes, there are laws against releasing classified information. Those laws are necessary and you have either broken them or you have not. The mess we find ourselves in as a country is because there are no absolutes. Everything is open to interpretation and "considering the situation", values clarification hogwash. You are either obeying the laws, or you are not. Breaking a law for the right reason is still breaking the law.
Our court systems were set up with the concept that there is a conviction AND a penalty phase. The penalty phase is where the sentencing can utilize discretion. However, our legal system has sunken to the point where the charging and trial phase are using "intent" discretion where it was never intended to be. Take a law history class and it is easy to see that where we are is nowhere close to the original intent of the US justice system.
Can I conceive of a situation where breaking a law, and taking the risk of being sentenced as a traitor might be beneficial, even preferable? Sure. But that is a different discussion.
When/if an AWB with no grandfather clause goes into effect, you'll just turn your guns in then, right?
Even if a law is unconstitutional, because it's a law we have to follow it, right? Even if there's a law against releasing classified information, blowing the whistle on unconstitutional practices can't happen if those practices are protected by putting "Secret" on the top of all of the evidence... So to follow the law you have to break the law... I don't see what Mr. Snowden did as being much of a choice- the law was protecting potentially unconstitutional practices, then if found to actually be in violation of the constitution, Mr. Snowden had to break the law to expose the violations. That deserves nothing less than an acquittal.
Aloha_Shooter
06-10-2013, 11:06
I don't see what Mr. Snowden did as being much of a choice- the law was protecting potentially unconstitutional practices, then if found to actually be in violation of the constitution, Mr. Snowden had to break the law to expose the violations. That deserves nothing less than an acquittal.
Actually, Snowden had plenty of choices. He could have raised the issue to the NSA IG, the DNI IG, or to his elected representative. He chose to expose a classified program in a way that is rife with mischaracterization and exploitation by people who want to damage the country. What he did is far from exposing the Clinton Administration placing a sweetheart deal for Tyson in their negotiations with Russia or China (diplomatic negotiation points are typically classified before the talks).
Actually, Snowden had plenty of choices. He could have raised the issue to the NSA IG, the DNI IG, or to his elected representative. He chose to expose a classified program in a way that is rife with mischaracterization and exploitation by people who want to damage the country. What he did is far from exposing the Clinton Administration placing a sweetheart deal for Tyson in their negotiations with Russia or China (diplomatic negotiation points are typically classified before the talks).
Actually we had this issue once in the Army... When you don't trust your Chain of Command (or fear that going to the IG could result in you getting in trouble) where do you turn. Maybe he feared this would be reported, then swept under the rug and/or he would be demoted or worse for having reported it. Many reasons to go the route he did... mainly, so it would get out, I assume.
Actually we had this issue once in the Army... When you don't trust your Chain of Command (or fear that going to the IG could result in you getting in trouble) where do you turn. Maybe he feared this would be reported, then swept under the rug and/or he would be demoted or worse for having reported it. Many reasons to go the route he did... mainly, so it would get out, I assume.
Your Federal elected officials have a liaison office that will help you.
Your Federal elected officials have a liaison office that will help you.
Have you seen what happens when you go over your Chain of Command and report something to congress? Again, the faith in the system deal... many don't have it, understandably, anymore. I'm not trying to assume I know the reason, but perhaps he went the way he did was because he didn't trust it would get out or anything would be done any other way.
Aloha_Shooter
06-10-2013, 11:32
You're stretching to defend the asshole. You said he didn't have a choice, we've pointed out he did, he had several. What Snowden did was right up there with Christopher Boyce even with the same allegedly altruistic motives.
Have you seen what happens when you go over your Chain of Command and report something to congress? Again, the faith in the system deal... many don't have it, understandably, anymore. I'm not trying to assume I know the reason, but perhaps he went the way he did was because he didn't trust it would get out or anything would be done any other way.
Unlikely, but possible. If he just HAD to make it public due to no response from multiple attempts up the chain of command, then that should have been part of the "outing". Trapped and no other choice is different than calling in an airstrike because Billy took your lunch money.
You're stretching to defend the asshole. You said he didn't have a choice, we've pointed out he did, he had several. What Snowden did was right up there with Christopher Boyce even with the same allegedly altruistic motives.
Not stretching at all, I simply said I would believe his reasons for going the route he did was to ensure that it got out and not buried (remember, remember, 11th of September... Benghazi anyone?). That's all. I can understand his reluctance to use the "appropriate" channels.
Unlikely, but possible. If he just HAD to make it public due to no response from multiple attempts up the chain of command, then that should have been part of the "outing". Trapped and no other choice is different than calling in an airstrike because Billy took your lunch money.
Or he feared using the appropriate channels out of fear that a) retribution would be swift and harsh, or b) it would be swept under the rug (or c) all of the above).
Beyond a shadow of a doubt he is a Traitor!
Aloha_Shooter
06-10-2013, 12:02
Not stretching at all, I simply said I would believe his reasons for going the route he did was to ensure that it got out and not buried (remember, remember, 11th of September... Benghazi anyone?). That's all. I can understand his reluctance to use the "appropriate" channels.
Or he feared using the appropriate channels out of fear that a) retribution would be swift and harsh, or b) it would be swept under the rug (or c) all of the above).
Sorry, no, that's complete crap. Retribution WILL be swift and harsh because what he did doesn't fall under whistleblowing. This isn't even comparable to Benghazi or the IRS which is why I say you're stretching to defend him. His fears -- if he had them -- are incorrect, inappropriate, and/or irrelevant. Publishing this kind of stuff in a foreign paper because of his misunderstandings and ill-begotten fears is BS and the distortions being written in the media will do incalculable damage to the country just like Manning's Wikileaks.
Sorry, no, that's complete crap. Retribution WILL be swift and harsh because what he did doesn't fall under whistleblowing. This isn't even comparable to Benghazi or the IRS which is why I say you're stretching to defend him. His fears -- if he had them -- are incorrect, inappropriate, and/or irrelevant. Publishing this kind of stuff in a foreign paper because of his misunderstandings and ill-begotten fears is BS and the distortions being written in the media will do incalculable damage to the country just like Manning's Wikileaks.
Usually I think of you being a very informed and quick individual- but on this I can't bring myself to agree with you. I just watched an extensive interview with Judge Napolitano on FNC and he says this guy is a hero. He brought to light that the NSA is doing a sort of "dragnet" operation on this issue, and that it is far beyond the intended scope of the law in regards to this. Our government is famous for covering shit up, from Benghazi to these new scandals that are coming out today (if you haven't heard- US Ambassador overseas investigated for prostitution being covered up)... So this guy could have (again my educated guess and speculation) feared that this was the only way to get these violations of the 4th Amendment out and looked at. It's dishonest to compare this guy to PFC Manning- Manning indiscriminately released classified documents that could harm US personnel and interests. This Snowden guy uncovered a massive data collection operation that is potentially unconstitutional and opens the door to abuse. That's not my call to make, but now it will be looked at, I guarantee that, and that would be thanks to this guy for leaking it.
Again, I ask, if the law says you can release the info, but the info sheds light on potential violations to the US Constitution, what would you do? What if you fear it will get covered up and not ever come to light/get investigated unless you step outside normal channels? This guy feels he did no wrong, but he is in fear that he will be in hiding for the rest of his life. While yes, he may have gone about it wrong, it's too late to play the "Woulda, coulda, shoulda" game and decide if he's a traitor for showing the world what our NSA is doing, or if Napolitano is correct and he's a hero for bringing this potentially unconstitutional program to light. So many here seem so hell bent on labeling this guy treasonous for pointing out that our own government could very well be spying on innocent Americans. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Pretty sure you need a judge to approve looking into someone... or at least that's what the law says.
Aloha_Shooter
06-10-2013, 16:23
Ronin -- I usually think of Judge Napolitano as informed but in this case I think he is falling prey to a lot of the mischaracterizations and urban legend that are running around. This guy's actions are on par with Christopher Boyce and his rationalizations are poppycock. Your guess and speculation in this case are NOT educated. This guy feels he did no wrong even though I'm sure he went through annual training on the obligations to protect information on Americans and how to report errors or bad actors. I don't think it's too late to blame him for taking the wrong path because what he did was so obviously and egregiously wrong. While I think Manning was far worse because of his intent, Snowden also indiscriminately released information in a manner that has made it ripe for mischaracterization, distortion and exploitation by those who seek to do our country harm. In my book, Snowden is every bit of the traitor that Christopher Boyce was.
muddywings
08-22-2013, 06:00
I think he waived his fairy wand..[fag]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning
"He was by all accounts unhappy and isolated. Because of the army's "Don't ask, don't tell (http://www.ar-15.co/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell)" policy (known as DADT, which was repealed in September 2011), he was not allowed to be openly gay, though he apparently made no secret of it; his friends said he kept a fairy wand on his desk."
bingo!!! winner!!!
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/22/us/bradley-manning/index.html
CNN) -- WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning intends to begin hormone therapy for gender reassignment and live the rest of his life as a woman, according to a statement from him read on NBC's "Today" show Thursday.
Manning wants to be referred to as Chelsea -- not Bradley -- according to the statement.
Manning's announcement comes a day after a military judge sentenced him to 35 years in prison for leaking hundreds of thousands of U.S. military and diplomatic documents.
Manning, 25, was convicted in July of stealing 750,000 pages of classified documents and videos and disseminating them to WikiLeaks, the online anti-secrecy group. Lind also reduced his rank from private first class to private, ordered him to forfeit pay and benefits and be dishonorably discharged.
break break
you tax dollars at work right there!!!
KestrelBike
08-22-2013, 08:14
Actually, Snowden had plenty of choices. He could have raised the issue to the NSA IG, the DNI IG, or to his elected representative. He chose to expose a classified program in a way that is rife with mischaracterization and exploitation by people who want to damage the country. What he did is far from exposing the Clinton Administration placing a sweetheart deal for Tyson in their negotiations with Russia or China (diplomatic negotiation points are typically classified before the talks).
If snowden have the info to anyone other than the press, I doubt we'd have ever heard of what the NSA has been doing, nor would anything have changed. The info would not have been further investigated, or just become a chip in some politicians poker game. The fact that you, I, and everyone else knows about the NSA and their shit tells me that snowden released the information in exactly the necessary manner. The fact remains that even with the world knowing about it, the practices haven't even stopped!! At least we have tangible reasons not to trust the government.
Aloha_Shooter
08-22-2013, 20:29
Both Manning and Snowden were leakers who intended and caused harm to the US. IMO Manning got off light -- he shouldn't have been eligible for parole until the 22d century.
OneGuy67
08-23-2013, 09:31
Both Manning and Snowden were leakers who intended and caused harm to the US. IMO Manning got off light -- he shouldn't have been eligible for parole until the 22d century.
I agree.
BlasterBob
08-23-2013, 10:31
Wonder how many times Manning attempted to be a whistle blower and no one paid any attention to a plain ole low level soldier. A sentence for him could be to allow him to have his requested sex change and after it's completed, turn him loose in the general prison population, then he'll get plenty of opportunities to blow whistles.[panic]
bingo!!! winner!!!
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/22/us/bradley-manning/index.html
CNN) -- WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning intends to begin hormone therapy for gender reassignment and live the rest of his life as a woman, according to a statement from him read on NBC's "Today" show Thursday.
Manning wants to be referred to as Chelsea -- not Bradley -- according to the statement.
Manning's announcement comes a day after a military judge sentenced him to 35 years in prison for leaking hundreds of thousands of U.S. military and diplomatic documents.
Manning, 25, was convicted in July of stealing 750,000 pages of classified documents and videos and disseminating them to WikiLeaks, the online anti-secrecy group. Lind also reduced his rank from private first class to private, ordered him to forfeit pay and benefits and be dishonorably discharged.
break break
you tax dollars at work right there!!!
How does he plan to pay for a sex change op if he has to forfeit all pay while he is in jail?
BlasterBob
08-23-2013, 11:35
How does he plan to pay for a sex change op if he has to forfeit all pay while he is in jail?
I believe it was mentioned on one of the TV news shows that the Government is expected to pay for HIS "change".
What a huge pile of [pileoshit]if that is true.
brokenscout
08-23-2013, 11:39
Torn, some stuff needed to be brought to light. But went a little to far
I'm having a hard time grasping the fact that the POS hasn't been stood in front of the firing squad. Ohh and he is a whistileblower alright.
OneGuy67
08-23-2013, 12:23
How does he plan to pay for a sex change op if he has to forfeit all pay while he is in jail?
Things like that have been traditionally paid for by the prison system. Several inmates have sued and won for their right to be changed, or for other taxpayer supported surgeries, medications, and other frivolous things.
Things like that have been traditionally paid for by the prison system. Several inmates have sued and won for their right to be changed, or for other taxpayer supported surgeries, medications, and other frivolous things.
That pisses me off so bad. There was a case in Washington state where a guy threatened Obama just so he could go to prison and get some sort of surgery that he wanted but could not afford.
Things like that have been traditionally paid for by the prison system. Several inmates have sued and won for their right to be changed, or for other taxpayer supported surgeries, medications, and other frivolous things.
Hoping it will be different since being a military prisoner he is still subject to UCMJ until his release.
OneGuy67
08-23-2013, 14:21
Hoping it will be different since being a military prisoner he is still subject to UCMJ until his release.
Unfortunately, there is court precedent in these matters, both at the federal and at the state level. I think it is B.S. as well.
battle_sight_zero
08-27-2013, 21:14
Sorry to resurrect this. But dont you just love how the media identifies this man as Chelsa. http://kmgh.m0bl.net/w/news-world/story/98543686/
Freaking twilight zone
DavieD55
08-27-2013, 21:34
Sorry to resurrect this. But dont you just love how the media identifies this man as Chelsa. http://kmgh.m0bl.net/w/news-world/story/98543686/
Freaking twilight zone
No kidding!
Rucker61
08-28-2013, 06:02
Oh come on. If we can't shoot him, at least we get to cut his balls off. Isn't that fitting for all traitors?
Aloha_Shooter
08-28-2013, 06:44
Torn, some stuff needed to be brought to light. But went a little to far
To quote the fictional Col Sherman T. Potter, "horsefeathers!" Nothing Manning sent to Wikileaks "needed to be brought to light" and it was WAY more than "a little too far." The little Mary (or Chelsea) isn't entitled to any reconstructive surgery and should just be glad he's not in front of a firing squad. Hell, I'm pissed he didn't get a minimum of life without possibility of parole and frankly I think he should run a gauntlet of every serviceman who's pulled a tour overseas, every State Department wonk who had to deal with the diplomatic complications and embarrassments created, and everyone working for DoD who has had to deal with the additional restrictions on working on classified systems.
He wants reconstruction? I'll give him reconstruction with tools made by Eaton and Buck.
Oh, come on.
There is no wrong answer, and everyone gets a trophy. Haven't you all been paying attention?
It's for the children.
Sent via my Mobile Work Avoidance Device
brokenscout
08-28-2013, 07:16
Calling BS, Ive watched several videos of things that happened , that would have never come out. (Apache pilots murdering people). I think Snowden was in the right also. I should have said went to far not just a little to far
To quote the fictional Col Sherman T. Potter, "horsefeathers!" Nothing Manning sent to Wikileaks "needed to be brought to light" and it was WAY more than "a little too far." The little Mary (or Chelsea) isn't entitled to any reconstructive surgery and should just be glad he's not in front of a firing squad. Hell, I'm pissed he didn't get a minimum of life without possibility of parole and frankly I think he should run a gauntlet of every serviceman who's pulled a tour overseas, every State Department wonk who had to deal with the diplomatic complications and embarrassments created, and everyone working for DoD who has had to deal with the additional restrictions on working on classified systems.
He wants reconstruction? I'll give him reconstruction with tools made by Eaton and Buck.
Aloha_Shooter
08-28-2013, 09:07
I'm calling BS on you calling BS. You have no freaking clue on the damage he created or the way the data he leaked has been miscontrued and distorted. The same goes for Snowden. Both of those a-holes seriously damaged national security and deserve the same treatment Christopher Boyce got (and he should have spent twice as much time in the pen as he did).
brokenscout
08-28-2013, 09:21
National Security over personal freedom? Snowden told us what we already suspected. Manning leaked to much, but some of the things would not have been brought to light if he hadn't. How long before we have cameras everywhere spying on us? What the NSA was doing isn't legal(or shouldn't be). Everything being done is being done under the "Guise" of National Security. When does it stop?
DavieD55
08-28-2013, 17:51
National Security over personal freedom? Snowden told us what we already suspected. Manning leaked to much, but some of the things would not have been brought to light if he hadn't. How long before we have cameras everywhere spying on us? What the NSA was doing isn't legal(or shouldn't be). Everything being done is being done under the "Guise" of National Security. When does it stop?
Camaras are already everywhere. It isn't going to stop because people are far more concerned about the quality of their entertainment.
If Manning had carefully selected one or two documents/videos to release, for what he felt were the right reasons, it would have been a lot different. Still wrong and illegal, but maybe justifiable to some. He did not do that. Instead, it seems he just posted everything that crossed his desk to wikileaks without even reading, let alone understanding, it. It seems he did this with the sole intent of doing harm to the United States, and it was done recklessly with total disregard for the very real danger he was placing fellow Americans in. He needs to be executed for that. They can let him wear a dress for his execution if he wants.
I have to wonder if he thinks his time will be easier if he's a woman in the female detention area instead of the male gen pop area.
DonnyCommo
08-28-2013, 19:18
I hope bubba gets to him
Aloha_Shooter
08-28-2013, 20:10
National Security over personal freedom? Snowden told us what we already suspected. Manning leaked to much, but some of the things would not have been brought to light if he hadn't. How long before we have cameras everywhere spying on us? What the NSA was doing isn't legal(or shouldn't be). Everything being done is being done under the "Guise" of National Security. When does it stop?
Again, horsefeathers. Snowden told you want you wanted to hear and reinforced your preconceived notions that everyone in the government is working toward national tyranny. Both Manning and Snowden leaked and distorted things they didn't understand and caused serious harm to the nation. Nothing Manning "brought to light" needed to be made public. The things the IRS, DOJ, and FEC have been doing are far more dangerous and more applicable to your fears but people just jump at Manning's and Snowden's "I'm a whistleblower" bovine fecal matter.
[Bang]
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.