- Joined
- Jan 24, 2013
- Messages
- 15,633
- Reaction score
- 6,159
- Location
- Behind the Orange Curtain
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
That disgraceful dirty fact isn't a secret. The Japanese protest every young girl rape. demand the offending sailor/marine be turned over and are rebuffed.
Been going on waaaay before your 'social engineering' so quit blaming it for everything.
Status of forces is no secret.
I do note you have dropped any debate and just fell back to your 'alamo' social engineering position... :roll:
.
No, it didn't, and that was one of the things the prosecution could not provide a single example of. Shame on you for getting caught up in propaganda and flag waving when the worst that was done to you was educating you on what your government was doing and not telling you like double taps, killing civilians, and killing children.
Treason.
He took an oath to safeguard the classified information he had access to. Breaking that oath is illegal...and treason.
He didn't "blow the whistle" he compromised national security.
Yes, you've missed the facts.
Sounds debatable, but assuming the trial was honest, he was found guilty, at least on lesser charges...
Well, he at least handled it the wrong way, but regardless, it's dangerous to blow the whistle these days.
You are confused. What they couldn't prove is that he intentionally aided the enemy. He did endanger American and allied lives through the intentional release of classified information. Which I am certain you have no capacity of understanding.
No, they could not show a single instance of harm when asked to do so during his sentencing. They had absolutely no evidence any person was harmed or put in danger due to the revalations, and it has been years, and I am sure they have been looking for something to blame him for. You are completely wrong. You are however correct in that I do lack the understanding that would lead me to a wrong conclusion like yours. I am not bothered by being right and not understanding your vindictive hatred of manning.
No, they could not show a single instance of harm when asked to do so during his sentencing. They had absolutely no evidence any person was harmed or put in danger due to the revalations, and it has been years, and I am sure they have been looking for something to blame him for. You are completely wrong. You are however correct in that I do lack the understanding that would lead me to a wrong conclusion like yours. I am not bothered by being right and not understanding your vindictive hatred of manning.
You are showing a complete lack of understanding all around. You are confusing "aiding the enemy" with endangering lives. You also have no understanding of classified material and the reason these laws exist at all. You should just back away from this discussion, you look foolish.
oh, you want to use something vague and unqualified. I endangered some lives today when I drove down to the store. I might have had an accident and killed people, so i guess i deserve 35 years in prison for existing like everyone else. For all that supposed danger which you cannot quantify you are admitting there is zero actual damage. It is dangerous for a magician to eat fire, that does not mean they hurt themselves every time they do it.
oh, you want to use something vague and unqualified. I endangered some lives today when I drove down to the store. I might have had an accident and killed people, so i guess i deserve 35 years in prison for existing like everyone else. For all that supposed danger which you cannot quantify you are admitting there is zero actual damage. It is dangerous for a magician to eat fire, that does not mean they hurt themselves every time they do it.
They didn't present it because they didn't feel it was needed during the hearing/would have been contentious, because everyone has a different definition of 'harm'.
Oh, there was absolutely damage. That goes without question.
No, it's not vague and unqualified. It's very real, and you would have to understand why things are classified to begin with to understand it. You certainly don't.
That is not true, they did not present it during his sentencing when asked because they had none.They were asked, and there is a proper procedural time to bring up the consequences of the crime when the judge is considering sentencing and they could not provide one instance where mannings leaks had caused any quantifiable damage. They could not show one death attributed to him. they could not show any money loss attributed to him. They could not show any damage at all.
then why was there no presentation of any of that at his sentencing?
yes, i understand they decided not to present it at trial, but at sentencing there is a point where it is part of process to bring up the effects of the criome committed when evaluating punishment.
They didn't show any. There's a difference.
No, it is vague and unqualified. A qualified and specific thing wiould been for them to be able to say because of him the terrorists made so and so attack, or did some specific thing. What you are saying is there was some danger and you do not really know where it is or what it does but it is out there.
Oh, so there was something you claim. Ok, please do tell us who was killed as a result of these leaks. Tell us what missions were stopped because of this. please do show us how the terrorist got one up on us using his leaks and be specific about the event.
No it isn't. Classified information is classified for it's potential danger to the US and it's citizens. The very essence of it is dangerous to human lives. You simply do not understand what you are talking about.
Because they felt the juice was not worth the squeeze.
And they didn't want to bring further controversy to the issue. They didn't want any doubt so they focused on that which is quantifiable.
If you think partner nations were happy with diplomatic cables being leaked (sometimes regarding things they shared with the US in confidence), you're crazy. They were unhappy. A nation becoming unhappy with another is damaging for the nation that had the leak.
No it isn't. Classified information is classified for it's potential danger to the US and it's citizens. The very essence of it is dangerous to human lives. You simply do not understand what you are talking about.
I do not understand it because it makes no sense.
You are referring to the same prosecutors who were seeking an aiding the enemy conviction, and many more years of punishment?
Those prosecutors decided to be lenient despite always asking for more strict punishment.
You insult me with that.
You really thought that lie was going to float by me? Am I really that stupid that you thought you could use that BS on me?
Now i will look up at the sky and whistle.
Wouldn't that be classified? If I knew it, would I share it here?
Anyway, I just posted what damage was done by his leaks. Like the bare minimum amount. It's there and it's incontrovertible.
It makes perfect sense, and that is not why you do not understand it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?