Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register

WATCH: Celebs Show Support For Bradley Manning And Ask What You Would Do

Actors Peter Sarsgaard, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Russell Brand, musician Moby, director Oliver Stone and former talk show host Phil Donahue are among celebrities who are showing their support for military whistleblower Bradley Manning. As the second day of the trial for the imprisoned U.S. soldier accused of leaking classified documents closes, a teaser for a public service announcement in support of Manning has been released. Each person declares “I am Bradley Manning” and implores viewers to wonder what they might have done if faced with the decision to leak information about “war crimes” that some felt should be in the public domain.

By:          EDITORS
On:           Jun 4, 2013
Tagged: , , , ,
    • alterego1980

      That’s a shame, I actually had a degree of respect for some of those people.

      Jun 4, 2013 at 7:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kieran

      “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

      —Edmund Burke, Irish Political Philosopher and statesman

      Jun 4, 2013 at 8:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jeff4justice

      Anyone who thinks people should just blindly follow orders must have no moral complaints against the Nazi police and military because, hey, they were just following orders right? They took an oath.

      In reality, any person of good conscious should call out and expose evil and immoral actions as Manning did.

      The 2-party system lies, they have no respect for the Constitution, and the politicians exempt themselves from the laws they want to impose on the rest of us – not to mention most of them have never been in the military yet are trigger happy to send people to die in their lie-based wars.

      Bush, Obama and many of their thugs should be on trial for both war crimes, financial crimes, pollution crimes, etc…

      Manning put no one in danger. The 2-party system on the other hand has killed thousands, maybe millions over decades of corruption.

      Enough blind Patriotism.

      Jun 4, 2013 at 8:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheMarc

      I want to ask a very sincere question here? What exactly did these leaked documents reveal that was illegal and/or evil? The only thing I remember of note was some embarrassing diplomatic cables. You would think with a Republican house that is jumping on every scandal it can create or find that we would have at least one significant and ongoing investigation into something other than who leaked the documents.

      Jun 4, 2013 at 9:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheMarc

      @TheMarc: Umm…oops never mind. See below:

      Free Bradley!

      Jun 4, 2013 at 9:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fawkes

      @alterego1980: Good, I’m glad they have one less evil admirer.

      Jun 4, 2013 at 10:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • aliaselias

      So happy to see this – Free Bradley!

      The fact that he exposed the truth and is being threatened with life in prison is so backwards- the people that committed terrible war crimes should be in jail.

      Jun 4, 2013 at 11:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      Ok, at the risk of, again, being attacked for a differing point of view on this one issue: Our military cannot function if each individual member questions every order given to him. Anyone who equates Manning’s violation of the law with Nazi Germany denigrates the horrific loss of the Jewish people and has no understanding of history. It makes me sad that people use the Holocaust as a comparison to this sad, misinformed young man.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 1:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fawkes

      @Caleb in SC: Some more great wisdom from a gay Benedict Arnold.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 1:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      @Fawkes: Sounds like another personal attack from the Uneducated, Misinformed Gay Avenger.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 1:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      @Fawkes: Hey, Fawkes, ask any of your gay, Jewish friends (if you have any) how they feel about this thread. I’m guessing they will not be too thrilled.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 1:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      @Fawkes: Did you really name yourself after a minor, animal character in Harry Potter?

      Jun 5, 2013 at 1:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      @Fawkes: Crickets. Just as I knew.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 1:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fawkes

      @Caleb in SC: Are you that much of a scatterbrain that you really can’t post all of your stupid thoughts as one big ridiculous comment? You’re just too tedious. And who the hell made you the moral arbiter of gay Jewish people? Also, as for Harry Potter, I really have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m used to your posts not making sense, but you really outdid yourself there.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 1:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      @Fawkes: My Rabbi.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 2:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      @Fawkes: And you really didn’t know that Prof. Dumbledore’s pet phoenix was named “Fawkes?” Wow, I hope you are pretty, because you sure aren’t very informed.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 2:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fawkes

      @Caleb in SC: I’m too busy reading things for grown-ups, little boy. You sure must be proud of yourself for knowing a minor character in a book written for children. You really got me there,

      Jun 5, 2013 at 2:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      @Fawkes: Ok, answer my questions from the other post: (1) How old are you; and (2) What is your level of education? I am fascinated by your lack of knowledge.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 2:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fawkes

      @Caleb in SC: I don’t answer self-identifying questions like that. Stalkers and paranoids (which I’m starting to think you are) can use it as a weapon. Your trolling has gone from idiotic to just plain creepy.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 2:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      @Fawkes: Says the Master Troll himself. LOL!!!

      Jun 5, 2013 at 2:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AladinSane

      @Caleb in SC: You do realize that Fawkes is named after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes as a joke? If your understanding of history is limited to tween novels I guess it isn’t surprising…

      Jun 5, 2013 at 2:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      @AladinSane: So why do you feel the need to jump in and personally insult me? You have no dog in this hunt.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 2:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fawkes

      @AladinSane: Again, I haven’t read the children’s books, so I really wouldn’t know. But congratulations on successfully changing the subject to some nonsense about my screen name rather than the very serious issue at hand. But I guess to people like you, a government that openly spits on human and civil rights is just one big joke.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 2:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      @Fawkes: Wow, @AladinSane was actually standing up for you and you shat in his face. Again, wow! You have no appreciation for anything that anyone else writes because it did not come from your poisoned pen.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 3:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fawkes

      @AladinSane: Sorry, I meant to direct that last comment at Caleb, not you.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 3:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fawkes

      @Fawkes: I meant to click reply to you, not him. Sorry we’re not all perfect angels like you.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 3:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 2eo

      Caleb really is an halfwit isn’t he. I like how he thinks acting like the victim makes him feel big and clever, when he is not capable of either of those things.

      Manning’s treatment is a disgrace, it’s the kind of treatment I expect from an islamic theocracy, we are supposed to be above jihad and religious persecution.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 3:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      @Fawkes: @2eo: Keep the personal attacks coming. They really enhance your “intelligent” points of view. LOL!!!

      Jun 5, 2013 at 3:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      @Fawkes: And you hit “reply” to yourself? Are you drunk?

      Jun 5, 2013 at 3:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fawkes

      @Caleb in SC: Nope, just preoccupied.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 3:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AladinSane

      No worries Fawkes, I didn’t think you did. Caleb, if you were honest you’d admit you didn’t know the name had deeper meaning, attack the argument on it’s merits rather than the name of the person posting, and just take a lesson that I have a dog in any hunt where someone tries to bully another about displaying ignorance while showcasing, better than Bob Barker, their own.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 3:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      @AladinSane: Did you even read this thread. I offered a differing point of view and Fawkes attacked me. Whatever. I have bullied no one. But apparently, if you offer a different point of view here, getting bullied is ok. Check yourself.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 3:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fawkes

      @Caleb in SC: No, the person you’re trying to bully is Bradley Manning, who represents the principles and values of this republic better than anyone.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 3:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      Ok, let’s all pile on Caleb! Bring it. I’m not “bullying” Manning. I am making judgment based on his actions and the letter of the law. The US Code and UCMJ do not say:

      “It shall be unlawful for any service member to reveal classified information . . .

      (A) Unless said service member disagrees with American foreign policy.”

      He violated the law and he has already plead guilty to ten counts levied against him. He is not a hero.

      How about this hypothetical: A service member disagrees with the repeal of DADT. He compiles a list of all know gay and lesbian personnel in his command since he has access to their privileged information. He then give that information to a local, Christian newspaper, which publishes the names, addresses and other identifying information of the LGBT military personnel, who are then subject to harassment and intimidation (and even worse).

      Under your scenario that persona would also be considered a whistle blower because they exposed what they thought was a wrongdoing on the part of the American government. You consider Manning to be above that because he is gay and you agree with his views. Nevertheless, when you flip the scenario, it does not hold true. Therefore, your argument is bullshit.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 3:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      By the way, “bullying” is not simple disagreement. If you overuse that term, it demeans people like me, who have actually been “fag bashed” and have had the shit kicked out of them for being different. Overusing the term “buying” also makes light of the fact LGBT teens are more at risk than any other group for suicide and mental illness. Overuse of the term “bullying” demeans us all.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 3:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fawkes

      @Caleb in SC: You forget about the oath that all service people take upon entering the military. The military oath is to defend the Constitution, not the government. The evil that Manning revealed was flagrantly unconstitutional and he had a moral obligation to expose it, as it was clear no one else had the bravey to do what he did. Your scenario is nonsensical for a number of reasons, particularly when it comes to the fact that whistleblower laws are designed to protect people from retaliation when they expose government corruption. While someone may disagree with repealing DADT, the process of repealing it was done legally and transparently (one of the few things this government has done in such a manner), and thus revealing the names of gay soldiers would not count as whistleblowing, but rather an invasion of privacy. The government has no right to privacy – the people do. You picked a pretty bad example.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 3:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AladinSane

      I’ll speak for myself. Caleb, you started to make a point, Fawkes derailed it. I admit when I am wrong. However, you took it to an entirely different level of disagreement. You may have felt attacked but please don’t try to play the victim. Also, your hypothetical doesn’t stand up because at no time was someone breaking the law. Those of us who support Manning do so, not because he is gay (though subscribing to gay blogs may have brought his actions to our consciousness), but because we hope all people would do so when they see an abuse of power. We as a country are not infallible.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 3:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      @Fawkes: So Manning didn’t invade the privacy of the government and the foreign service? Bullshit.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 3:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fawkes

      @Caleb in SC: Oh please, quit it with the fake moral outrage. I’ve been bullied my whole life so I know what it feels like. You wanting Manning convicted for actually serving his country, which would either result in a very long prison sentence, or perhaps even the death penalty, is one of the nastiest forms of bullying I’ve seen.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 3:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AladinSane

      My reference to your bullying wasn’t simple disagreement, it was your behaviour in trying to dissuade someone you disagreed with from speaking their piece. Jeebus, you attacked someone about their Jewish friend (wtf?) and then acted morally superior when they didn’t respond quickly enough for you (14 minutes in gay years is how long?). And who is this “people like me” that you feel the need to separate yourself from the rest of us that have experienced the same?

      Jun 5, 2013 at 3:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      @AladinSane: @Fawkes: And no, I did not forget that he took and oath — I took the same oath!!! “To protect the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic . . .” So revealing confidential information is actually PROTECTING the Constitution? You may as well wipe your ass with the Bill of Rights.

      I am not playing the victim. I am, however, tired of been “bullied” for a differing point of view.

      Jesus, people, grow up and realize what kind of world we live in. It’s not all unicorns and lollipops just because LGBT issues are making strides.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 3:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fawkes

      @Caleb in SC: In other words, I picked your pathetic argument to pieces and you have no comeback but to defend the government you worship. I really didn’t see that coming.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 3:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fawkes

      @Caleb in SC: You’re a disgrace to your fellow servicemen and women because you clearly have no idea what protecting the Constitution means. You had the nerve to insinuate that I am uneducated, but it’s clear that you’re a true know-nothing. Read the Declaration of Independence, read the Federalist Papers, read the founding documents and maybe you’ll learn a thing or two about the difference between serving the government and serving the republic. There really is nothing more I can say or do to try and save you from yourself.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 3:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AladinSane

      Caleb, simple question. If your country commits war crimes and you are part of it’s military are you duty bound to protect it or morally obligated to speak up?

      Jun 5, 2013 at 4:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      @Fawkes: Dude, you make me sound like I am effing GWB.

      BTW, federal whistle blower laws do NOT cover governmental personal in a war zone. Look that shit up. I am so sick of arm chair attorneys, who think they know the law because they read a few blogs.

      And, Fawkes, can you not post anything without making an attack. I think your arguments are pathetic, specious, and disingenuous, but I have never — until now — characterized them as such. You, however, cannot say anything without attacking the other person. I thought you were better than that.

      You are right in one regard. My hypothetical may have been “just” an invasion of privacy, but Manning’s was “just” an invasion of privacy of those involved in his confidential information and “just” a violation of national security. The fact that no one has died as a result is of no consequence — Manning didn’t know that when he leaked the information.

      He is not a hero simply because he is gay and violated the letter of the law.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 4:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fawkes

      @Caleb in SC: Like I’ve said before, evil is worthy of being attacked. It is clear that you’re nothing but a big government apologist and arguing with you has been entirely pointless. You have nothing to back up your opinions yet you try to make yourself a martyr when other people call you out for what you are: a traitor, in more ways than one.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 4:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AladinSane

      I’m not an arm chair attorney, merely a human being that doesn’t think because I live in a country it exists outside of morality. Because there is a law does not make it just or moral. So answer the question.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 4:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      @Fawkes: So, I use your own words that you used to attack me and you call me a traitor to this country? I make points and your personally attack me? You just proved what I have been saying all along — you cannot have a civil debate without personal attacks. Thank you!!!

      Jun 5, 2013 at 4:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AladinSane

      Caleb, please accept my apologies. You’ve turned about and started debating on the issues even if I disagree with you. Fawkes is a lil late to the game…

      Jun 5, 2013 at 4:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      @AladinSane: I would had there been a question. AladinSane, what is your question?

      Jun 5, 2013 at 4:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AladinSane

      From 3 up of mine “If your country commits war crimes and you are part of it’s military are you duty bound to protect it or morally obligated to speak up?”

      Jun 5, 2013 at 4:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fawkes

      @AladinSane: I debated with him for as long as I could stomach it. There comes a point where you realize that there is no winning with someone. Some people have to be attacked because it’s all they can understand.

      @Caleb in SC: You’re a traitor to more than just this country.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 4:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      @Fawkes: Thank you! Every time you personally attack me, I am more convinced that my position is correct. Namaste!

      Jun 5, 2013 at 4:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      @AladinSane: Aladin, if I am not mistaken, I think your question is: “Are service members not required to disobey a lawful order or regulation they feel is morally wrong?”

      This comes from the “Nuremberg Defense” from WW II, when Nazi officials tried to evade prosecution by the “I am only following orders” defense. The short answer is Yes and No.

      If you are in a combat zone and a superior officer orders you to kill all the civilians in a village, then, no, you should not follow that order. That is a pure moral judgment.

      If there is a statute on the books that says you cannot release confidential information, then, yes, you should follow that statute. In this case, you have the judgment of the entire Congress and the signature of the President behind the statute.

      In Manning’s situation, he was just a PFC in the Army. It is not his place to question the judgment of Congress and the President because he had a bitch with US foreign policy. There were other ways of lawfully expressing his displeasure – one of which would have been to get out of the military and become a peace activist. To do what he did, if there had been an declared war under the US Constitution, would have been treason.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 4:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      @Fawkes: Such a melodramatic douche. LOL!!!

      Jun 5, 2013 at 4:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fawkes

      @Caleb in SC: Please, you’ve always been sure of yourself. I’ve seen your postings on plenty of other articles. Just stop playing the victim, it’s a tired tactic from an old playbook.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 4:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      Wow, you used my own language about the GOP. Thanks for the endorsement!!! Now, get to bed and work on your own material.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 4:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fawkes

      @Caleb in SC: Bit of the pot calling the kettle black, eh?

      Jun 5, 2013 at 4:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      @Fawkes: Night, night, Pumpkin, there are serious people trying to have a real debate on the issues.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 4:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fawkes

      @Caleb in SC: LOL and to think you lectured me on personal attacks.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 4:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      @Fawkes: Not a personal attack, Pumpkin, just an observation. Let it go:

      Soft kitty, warm kitty
      Little ball of fur.
      Happy kitty, sleepy kitty
      Purr purr purr.

      Stalk me in the morning!

      Jun 5, 2013 at 4:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fawkes

      @Caleb in SC: Will do, my little traitor!

      Jun 5, 2013 at 4:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      @Fawkes: Do NOT make me dose you like your parents did, young man!!!

      Jun 5, 2013 at 4:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AladinSane

      Actually, your and Fawkes petty lil bit aside which did nothing to redeem either of you, was clear. Don’t rephrase it. I asked you a simple either/or question.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 5:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fawkes

      @Caleb in SC: That’s way over the line. You are nothing but a bully. You’ve learned nothing from the hardships of your bullying if you can turn around and say something like that. What a disgusting coward you are. You’ve just proven every single comment I made about you, and with gusto.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 5:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      @AladinSane: It is not a simple yes or no question. Sorry, been there and done that. There are degrees of morally wrong and culpability. To reduce it to a simple yes or no is absurd.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 5:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb in SC

      @Fawkes: Really? You shat all over me on every post and then accuse ME of bullying YOU? Here are your words:

      “You’ve just proven every single comment I made about you.”

      Sooooo, after shitting on me all night and me calling you out on it, I cross the line with one joke about your parents dosing you? After the countless insults you heaped on me? Are you effing kidding me? You have no clue. Work that shit out with your therapist, not me.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 5:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AladinSane

      Ah caleb, you haven’t done anything to suggest there should be a difference. You’ve only quoted law not made a moral argument. Again, answer the question and if you don’t think it applies to this situation provide reasons why. The rest of the world is pretty clear on what he exposed as being a war crime so explain how it isn’t.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 5:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AladinSane

      And let me be clear. I’m not interested in legality, I’m questioning morality.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 5:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 2eo

      @Fawkes: Of course he is, have you seen his other posts, he claims to be liberal yet advocates punishing those who believe in the ideals of his own country.

      He’s no better than Avenger or Balehead, actually he posts from the same county as Balehead, must be something in the water down there that turns them into bullying right wing bigots.

      Stop replying to him, he offers nothing of worth.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 7:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DownSouth

      @alterego1980: Is that what passes for argument in neocon/neoliberal circles these days, long on flip and glib, but devoid of any meaninful content?

      Jun 5, 2013 at 8:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DownSouth

      @Caleb in SC: Channeling your inner Richard Nixon there?

      RICHARD NIXON: “The deterioration of respect for law and order can be traced directly to the spread of the corrosive doctrine that every citizen possesses an inherent right to decide for himself which laws to obey and when to obey them.”

      Nixon was taking dead aim at Martin Luther King, who in his essay, “Love, law, and civil disobedience” explained that the Civil Rights Movement

      MARTIN LUTHER KING: “says that it is as much a moral obligation to refuse to cooperate with evil as it is to cooperate with good. Noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as the cooperation with good. So that the student movement is willing to stand up courageously on the idea of civil disobedience. And it is probably misunderstood more than anything else. And it is a difficult aspect, because on the one hand the students would say, and I would say, and all the people who believe in civil rights would say, obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 and at the same time, we would disobey certain laws that exist on the statutes of the South today.

      This brings in the whole question of how can you be logically consistent when you advocate obeying some laws and disobeying other laws. Well, I think one would have to see that the students recognize that there are two types of laws. There are just laws and there are unjust laws. And they would be the first to say obey the just laws, they would be the first to say that men and women have a moral obligation to obey just and right laws. And they would go on to say that we must see that there are unjust laws.”

      Now here’s a really tough question: Who marshalls more moral authority, Richard Nixon or Martin Luther King?

      Jun 5, 2013 at 8:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DownSouth

      @Caleb in SC: Or maybe it’s Adolf Eichmann you’re channeling.

      After all, as he was quick to point out to the court in Jerusalem, he not only “obeyed orders, but also obeyed the law” when he loaded all those innocent people on box cars and shipped them off to the death camps.

      All the way from Núremberg to the teachings of Martin Luther King, it is more than clear that one has an obligation to break immoral laws.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 8:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DownSouth

      @Caleb in SC: So the government has privacy rights?

      Geez, I thought in a democracy it was the individual that has privacy rights, and the government which is supposed to be open and transparent. What am I missing here?

      Jun 5, 2013 at 9:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 2eo

      He’s from the same group of people who think “Westboro church” are [email protected] left wing militants because they protest at military events. He also seems to think that acting like the victim, feigning politeness and accordance with traditional sentiment makes him right and everyone insulting him wrong.

      Much like creationists, the time for discourse has gone. To keep believing in the right wing machine is to be against us in all its shapes and forms.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 9:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DownSouth

      @Caleb in SC: Once again, you place yourself firmly in the Richard Nixon and Adolf Eichmann camp.

      With you guys, it’s all about mala prohibita, or wrongful only because it is illegal, and nothing about mens rea, or an “evil-meaning mind.” Yours is an unbelievably one-eyed view of jurisprudence, and is “inconsistent with our philosophy of criminal law.” (Morissette v. United States)

      Jun 5, 2013 at 9:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DownSouth

      @Fawkes: Well I hope you’re right that Bradley Manning “represents the principles and values of this republic better than anyone.”

      But sometimes entire societies can become pathological and dysfunctional. For instance, speaking of such a society in “The True Believer,” Eric Hoffer laments that “It colors my thinking and shapes my attitude toward events. I can never forget that one of the most gifted, best educated nations in the world, of its own free will, surrendered its fate into the hands of a maniac.”

      Or as Hannah Arendt put it in “Eichmann in Jerusalem,”

      HANNAH ARENDT: “Eichmann needed only to recall the past in order to feel assured that he was not lying and that he was not deceiving himself, for he and the world he lived in had once been in perfect harmony. And that German society of eighty million people had been shielded against reality and factuality by exactly the same means, the same self-deception, lies, and stupidity that had now become ingrained in Eichmann’s mentality. These changed from year to year, and they frequently contradicted each other; moreover, they were not necessarily the same for the various branches of the Party hierarchy or the people at large. But the practice of self-deception had become so common, almost a moral prerequisite for survival, that even now, eighteen years after the collapse of the Nazi regime, when most of the specific content of its lies has been forgotten, it is sometimes difficult not to believe that mendacity has become an integral part of German national character.”

      The Army and Obama propagandists have engineered an elaborate PR campaign to cast Manning as an unstable. deranged and vengeful young gay man, appealing to every anti-gay stereotype in the book. The reality, however, is something quite different: Bradley Manning is a highly principled young man who refused to participate in Obama’s and the military’s insane and immoral world. As Kurt Vonnegut so famously put it: “A sane person to an insane society must appear insane.”

      Jun 5, 2013 at 10:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BJ McFrisky

      Yeah, because intellectual giants such as Sarsgaard, Gyllenhaal, Brand, Moby and Stone are unquestionably THE foremost authorities on military issues and the importance of their secrecy. I can’t wait to hear what Amanda Bynes has to say on the issue—that should be really insightful.
      As for Manning, I suspect he’ll be spending the remainder of his life in solitary confinement, since the military prison population isn’t likely to welcome him with open arms. You reap what you sow, Brad. Get used to it.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 1:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jeff4justice

      @DownSouth: amen.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 1:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • gppm1103

      @jeff4justice: Very good post. And it’s not just Manning, they are jailing geek hackers for exposing things the government doesn’t want us to know.
      This is not the America I grew up in.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 2:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • gppm1103

      @DownSouth: I second jeff4justice. amen.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 2:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Deepdow

      #82 says :

      The patriot Act pretty much voided the bill of rights, but back to this spectacle – wait, forget it, I’m too late.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 2:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DownSouth

      When it comes to a dictatorial,brutal and authoritarian personality, we really haven’t seen anything quite like Obama in the White House for almost a century. Woodrow Wilson was the last president who, like Obama, believed he could use the United States Constituion as toilet paper to wipe his ass with.
      Obama, just like the Houston DA who drug out Texas’ “Homosexual Conduct” law that hadn’t been used for decades in order to prosecute John Lawrence and Tyron Garner in 1998 for “engaging in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex”, dug out laws promulgated by Wilson a century earlier so he could prosecute Bradley Manning and other whistleblowers and reporters. Wilson, in his zeal to sell a skeptical American public on WWI, used the laws to persecute any dissenting voices opposed to WWI. The laws with a few exceptions laid dormant on the books for almost 100 years until Obama came along.
      For a short video of the history of how and why the laws Obama is using to persecute Manning came about, there’s this outstanding film by Scott Noble:

      Jun 5, 2013 at 4:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DownSouth

      To illustrate the extent to which Obama is willing to carry his war on visible government, the Christian Science Monitor has a new story up: “Bradley Manning’s Wikileaks trial shrouded in secrecy”
      And it is no wonder the military judge in Manning’s court martial trial, Army Col. Denise Lind, wants her rulings to remain shrouded behind a veil of secrecy. As Truthout reported:
      “In a telling sign of just how fair of a trial Manning will get, the military judge already ruled that almost all questions and evidence the defense can raise about Manning’s intentions for acting are irrelevant to the trial.”
      This ruling firmly places Lind in the Richard Nixon and Adolf Eichmann camp. For these faithful adherents of legalism, the law is all about mala prohibita, or wrongful only because it is illegal, and nothing about mens rea, or an “evil-meaning mind.” For them the law is all about the letter of the law, and nothing about the spirit of the law. It’s an unbelievably one-eyed view of criminal jurisprudence, and is “inconsistent with our philosophy of criminal law.” (quotes from the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Morissette v. United States)

      Jun 5, 2013 at 4:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DownSouth

      After Adrian Lamo’s testimony before the court martial yesterday, it becomes very clear why judge Lind ruled:
      1) Not to allow the court reporter into the courtroom who the press had hired to make a transcript of the trial, and
      2) That almost all questions and evidence the defense can raise about Manning’s intentions for acting are irrelevant to the trial.
      The Obama and army propagandists have spent the last three years in an elaborate, full court press to demonize Manning as a troubled, unstable, and vengeful young gay man who did what he did out of spite. If this were true, the government would have little problem demonstrating the mens rea — “evil-meaning mind” — requirement necessary for a criminal conviction. But it looks like all the government propaganda was just that: distortions and half-truths at best, and outright lies at worst.
      It’s amazing how, despite all the precautions Lind took to insure the truth didn’t become public, that somehow it is managing to slip out. For instance, Scott Galindez reported that yesterday Lamo testified that, in emails and chats, Manning had written to him:
      ~ that Manning did not believe in good guys and bad guys anymore, only a plethora of states acting in self interest.
      ~ that Manning thought maybe he was maybe too idealistic.
      ~ that, based on what Manning had seen, he couldn’t let the information stay inside.
      ~ that Manning felt connected to everybody, that we were all distant family, and he said he cared.
      ~ that Manning called himself a humanist and said he had custom dog tags where he had written humanist on the back.
      ~ that we are all human and we are killing ourselves and no one seems to care.
      ~ that Manning was bothered that nobody seemed to care, that apathy was far worse than active participation.
      ~ that Manning preferred the painful truth over blissful fantasy.

      Those are hardly the thoughts of some little air-headed disco queen that the Obama and army propagandists have spent the last three years creating.
      It also explains why Lind’s ruling negating the mens rea requirement was so elemental to convicting Bradley Manning. There is no way the army could demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, the “evil-meaning mind” requirement.

      Jun 5, 2013 at 5:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jeff4justice

      @gppm1103: Correct, And spying on journalists and threatening to jail them if they do not disclose sources.

      Anyone in reality has to come to terms with the fact that Democrats have become as bad as Republicans in many, many ways.

      Jun 6, 2013 at 12:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • Copyright 2016 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.