It is when people make such a song and dance about other countries doing it and claiming that the land of freedom and democracy is so much better than countries which do such things.

wow. such blindness.
So we have American foriegn aid being given to the people who are funding the terrorists who attack America.
We have foriegn aid that is meant for fighting the terrorists that is being used for other purposes and being diverted to the very terrorists it is supposed to be used against.
We have foriegn aid going to crazy dictators who require huge bribes just to pretend to be friendly to the US while constantly upping their demands yet doing bugger all in return.
Then of course you have the foriegn aid to people who should in theory be well placed to aid in the war on terror but appear to be directing their anti terror efforts at getting rid of any local political opposition instead and whose primary anti terror unit is actually banned by US law from being eligible for any aid as it is just a good old fashioned death squad which just kills with impunity whoever it feels like.
It really appears that some people havn't the faintest idea what the wikileaks has revealed.
As any single one of those constitutes treason by the US against the US as it means you are willingly financing your own enemies and acting against your own laws and own national interests.
But hey its just helping out against poverty in exchange for a favour right:rotfl2:

This thread is good example why some things need to be confidetial.Its not that wikileaks reviled that much so far.
Maybe it just brought some from fantasy world and hurt some pride.

Well pride does come before a fall, plus when that pride is based on some fantasy world reality can be a big shock.
It explains why there was so much hysteria about wikileaks "treason" and it endangering lives, even leading some to call for assasinations.
Though of course many wish to retain that "pride" they had so are crawling back into their fantasy world where that pride can be real again.

I guess the real question might be: Is Manning being treated any differently than any other prisoner in pre-trial confinement for a equal or similar crime?

If it is not true, the basis for this discussion would not exist. Thus, if we are to discuss this, in the absence of any clear source saying otherwise, we discuss it on the basis it is true.

Besides, you seem to think it is just desserts for him to be treated this way, so why do you doubt the veracity?

If all of this helps bring them home, would he still have, in overall terms, put them at "increased risk"?

And as for whether it is easier, perhaps we can trade. Manning goes to Iraq, one lucky grunt gets out of Iraq but goes into Manning's Supermax cell with the regime as described. Tell me if you can get anyone to volunteer.

OK, litmus test question: What do you think of Viktor Belenko?

Sorry if this has nothing to do with the past 5 pages of discussion, but I haven't the time nor patience to read about how this guy is mistreated.

First off: Betray your country, expect it to shat on your life.

Secondly: Go to any hospital, mental ward, etc and they do this (checking every 5-10 minutes). It's called suicide watch.

Cheers.

Kraute

Kazuaki Shimazaki II,

That question is rigged, because the defector in question assisted the US. If MaddogK was a Russian citizen, then the question would be reasonable. Your trying to compare a person who HARMED MaddogK's country with one who helped it.

What your doing is setting up a moralistic question against a patriotic one.

Morally, Viktor was in the wrong. However the view of a US patriot contradicts that. This is your intent of course, to see which supercedes, moral fiber or patriotic ferver.

The problem here is that while Viktor did in fact HELP the US, while harming the Soviet Union, Pvt. Manning has harmed the US but helped NO ONE. He has not saved any lives, he hasn't changed the course, but he has done irreperable harm to his country and his fellow service members - for what? So that terrorists could pour through the documents and figure out who some informants were? So they could know more about which arab governments to trust, and which to target?

All this guy did was harm. He is lucky he isn't up facing crimes against humanity charges IF he was the one who actually did it.

Looks like you basically got my intent - I want to demodulate MaddogK's attitude into "promise breaking" or "hurting his own country" versus "hurting the US" components. Perhaps rather nasty of me but serious discussion IMO is only worthwhile if it is mostly the former rather than the latter.

Analogies are never 100% fits, but I'll disagree. Viktor definitely hadn't saved lives or changed the course of his country other than making sure yet another sum of roubles would be destined for weapons changing (not even developing) rather than the Soviet People, and it is hard to see how he could realistically have hoped otherwise. Personally, I think Viktor is a whiny, traitorous brat and I'm not Russian.

Now for Manning (yes he isn't convicted, but we probably all think he did it, and if not his name can be used as a convenient placeholder for whoever actually did).

His critics often say (summarized) "Manning deserves execution" and "Manning didn't leak anything too stunning" simultaneously. IMO, it is one or the other. In any case, considering the opponent and data content, it can't be as painful as the MiG-25 was. As for the "help" side of the equation, there is hope (at least more than in Belenko's actions) that the leaks will cause additional media pressure for the US troops to return home. The idea that Iraq and Afghanistan intervention was a mistake is hardly uncommon even in the US, and if we agree with that premise, than anything that helps the US make the decision to recall the troops is a good thing. So Manning broke the law, but I don't think he's a traitor.

We have already established that the claims on the website are exaggerations and that several of the takes here on it are deliberate misconceptions Kaz. Let me turn the question around. By what reason should I blindly trust it's veracity like you seem so ready to? I can't believe you're part of the crowd who believes Manning is being starved for oxygen are you?

But it won't help bring our soldiers home, we're in this until we win or loose and some low level classified documents are going to change that. What it will do however is lend assistance to the enemies war effort by giving them insight into our operational practices and procedures. If that's not a traitorous act then nothing is.

Skimming through the posts, the oxygen thing never appeared on the original at all, so it cannot be faulted on the article.

The other is the 5 min/check vs 30-60 min/check thing, and IMHO the possibility that 5 min is true, and thus the guy is being treated worse than the norm in what is already a not-awfully-humanitarian regime is inadequately explored by its poster (CaptainHaplo).

I've explained it in my first post-in-thread. It may be true, it may be not. However, no one can bring a solid counter-article. The debate is thus effectively on whether the treatment as portrayed in the article is proper, and if you don't accept (at least for the purposes of debate) that the article is reasonably accurate, there's not much to discuss.

Personally, I'm inclined to put my coins in the "It's Generally Accurate" betting box.

Manning must be living in a real luxurious place if they can control the amount of oxygen entering his body, so no :). If such facilities exist, however, I'm not so trusting of the US government that I'll completely exclude the possibility they'll have used it.

You are contradicting yourself. First you say that they are "low level classified" documents, which should translate into "not awfully harmful" documents, then you say he's traitorous.

As for the bring the soldiers home thing, wouldn't the government share some responsibility in not bringing the soldiers home despite a supposedly elevated risk factor?

No offense August but, when you post you, and anyone else who posts, " Solicites " an opinion.

No I am not contradicting myself. An enemy can learn a lot from documents classified Confidential and Secret, especially when they get access to them in volume. Why else do you think these security classifications exist?

Besides, "not awfully harmful" in WAR still means lives and limbs Kaz. Yeah the little rat is a traitor. Treason isn't defined by the damage done.

Give up a whole war just because of a single security breach? Right. ;)

Maybe if the war was wrong to begin with, it is high-time to pull out, August.

Another Thread that went "I'm right and how stupid can I respond." :roll:

Maybe if your Aunt had a beard she'd be your uncle. Prove the war was wrong to begin with Kaz.

Gee Whiz FIREWALL !!! They just don't get it. HuH ?

They wanna win at any cost even when it makes them look like a loser.

Oh man, this is RICH ... so you think that any buck private has the qualifications to decide what qualifies as an "enemy"? That's your argument? Really?:salute:

As a note on the rest of this thread, let's just say it's not shocking the the liberal/anti-America crowd comes down on the same side of this issue.

What IS mind-boggling is that the American far-left that thinks such leaks are a good idea has yet to demonstrate one, singular positive effect of said leaks, rather preferring the idea that we should all simply accept that being able to know everything is intrinsically a positive effect.

All the while those who wish to destroy the very freedoms that grant us the very luxary of publically thinking we are entitled to such information are foaming at the mouth at the precedence of openess without regard to reprecussion.

Yes. The oath does not say "all enemies, foreign and domestic, as designated by your boss" or any other similar thing - it says "all enemies", and since you are taking the oath personally, yes, your best individual judgment is being demanded on this affair.

You live in a democratic society. As such, the free flow of information is an intrinsic good. Every piece of information that is blocked from view is intrinsically bad.

As such, the onus is on those who classify information to justify that each and every piece of information is classified for real net utilitarian advantage.

Question is if such a free flow of information can cause the government to not be able to make any significant decisions.
Role of government is to act in the best interest of its country while total openness can contradict those interests.
Of course secrecy can be misused but no system is perfect .
On another hand total anarchy doesn't sound too good for me.