Can someone point out to me a specific document released by one of these guys that was dangerous to America? I'm not trying to take sides here I'm just curious.
In terms of the NSA spying, that's not some kind of revelation, just read the Patriot Act, it's no secret we have no privacy left.
Good question in regards to Manning. Before the trial, the claim that Manning put lives at risk was a constant talking point and of course like a good pep squad, echoed throughout the interlink by those blindly loyal to Norsefire. The prosecution during the trial to my knowledge never offered a witness to support the claim nor any evidence either. In my mind, had they presented such to show harm especially to field troops, this is a whole other ballgame and Manning is facing the death penalty and hard to argue against that either. Such evidence at the least would have insured a 60 year sentence as the prosecution wanted if not longer or as stated, a death sentence.
During the sentencing phase, retired Army General Robert Carr who was the first witness and testified that Manning disclosures caused harm. In a
July 31st LA Times piece, Carr was quoted from the proceedings as stating the following:
Carr testified that by exposing so much classified material, countless lives were put at risk. “It’s a nasty world,” he said. “In some cases, lives will be harmed.”
It continues:
But Carr did not specify who was harmed by Manning’s disclosures. He did say that sources of information dried up and “quit talking to us as a result of the releases.” He also said that U.S. supply lines were compromised because details of military logistics were divulged and secret surveys of communities in Afghanistan were jeopardized.
Carr never presented anything in the way of names or other information other than to present an Ad Verecundium that Manning did in fact cause some alleged troop harm.
Another witness was John Kirchhofer, deputy chief financial officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency who worked under General Carr. Kirchhofer stated that:
described meeting with angry
NATO partners in Europe the week WikiLeaks posted classified material about the war in Iraq.
“There were some unpleasant comments directed at me and some accusations directed at the U.S.,” he said. “They were aggressive. People got chesty.”
OK, Manning did cause harm, he exposed the backstabbing and 2 faced nature of this level of power and people in power got embarrassed. That was the real crime.
However, in the actual trial itself as reported by the
Army Times, retired Air Force Colonel Morris Davis testified that Manning did no harm. People will believe what they want, seems to me no evidence was given he did any harm and a little evidence offered to deflect the charges he did. This issue seems more a PR campaign on bothsides and comes down to who you want to believe. The fact that Carr and Kirchhofer testified in the sentencing hearing seems to me more about maintaining talking points with the public than about a sentence for Manning. They knew the sentence would be light to what they wanted and the public needed to be primed so as to insure no critical thinking. The fact Manning didn't get the 60 years the prosecution wanted may speak to the judge not being convinced of the harm issue or at least as it relates to the actual battlefield. I do think Manning harmed the diplomatic front and personally I don't find that a bad thing at all. Did he violate his oath of office? No more than the rat bastards in Washington who run this country and let's don't even speak of all the characters involved from Wall Street to Washington in the economic harm caused to this country and none of them even did the first perp walk. Many got a bailout along with bonuses and raises and now I'm suppose to fixate my patriotic fakery on Manning as evil?
But back to General Carr and what I think is saving the best for last. In the earlier linked LA times piece, it was thus stated about Carr and then he's quoted:
Carr, who oversaw the
Pentagon’s secret intelligence gathering but is now an executive at Northrop Grumman, said what Manning did “affected our ability to do our mission.”
As an executive now at Northrop Grumman, I've no doubt Manning did "affect Carr and Grumman's ability to do their mission!"
Surely as Carr sat on the stand he had no other interests to which he was serving and in the case of Kirchhofer, should we watch his future after he leaves the military and see where he ends up?
As to the sex change claims, the military will not grant Manning a sex change on the gov't nickle so that hysteria can stop but why did his lawyer appear to raise it and better yet why has the story run off the rails? A red herring? I mean, looking at both Manning and Snowden and their backgrounds raises the question, how did they get such clearances? Even more to the point, how have nearly 5 million people also been granted the same clearance levels? With that many people having access, just how super secret was this stuff to begin with? By demonizing Snowden and Manning with red herring, we are all suppose to follow false trails and not return to those deeper questions about security clearance processes.
Nail the leaders asses, public and private, who ginned us up for war and then ginned us up for economic chaos, to the barn door and then I might grant you some standing on Manning and Snowden, but until then, they are friend'ing heroes!
Faking the news, lying for the fear effect and playing security theater to make sure the masses never catch on.