Second highest-rated:
Manning still doesn't seem to have the slightest clue as to the impact of her stealing of this classified material. When she's drinking her Starbucks,* does she ever think about the Afghan villagers, for example, whose life she put in danger by her disclosures? Yet we're supposed to feel sorry for her for her time in prison.Third:
Chelsea Manning was a traitor to the United States. It's not just that she leaked classified documents by the hundreds of thousands. It was that she was totally indiscriminate in doing so, taking no care to redact names to protect people's lives, and including tens of thousands of State Department documents which had nothing to do with the Iraq War but simply because she happened to get her hands on them. (That said, as a former Foreign Service Officer, I think the documents put what the State Department does in a pretty good light for the public, even if their release did cause us some problems.)And fourth, the kicker:
She was rightfully sentenced to a very long jail term, then pardoned by Barrack Obama in his 11th hour exit which, alas, was hardly less dignified by this pardon than Bill Clinton's pardon of a couple high-contributor convicted felons (Mark Rich comes to mind).
I saw a TV interview with her. And its ALL ABOUT ME: first Chelsea's private moral code which led to her betrayal of our country. And then, asking that the US taxpayers while she was in jail pay to help her change sexual identity from boy to girl. Fine if she wishes that, but not on my nickel, thank you.
That we coddle and pardon such a person is a true signal of moral collapse and a refusal to set a standard (and yes, standards are tough) that members of our society obey if they are to be true to each other.
She may be free from jail, but hopefully she will never be free of the social stigma of her deed.
Glad the New York Times was not around 250 years ago, or you would be braying about "Benedict Arnold: Misunderstood Patriot."______________________
* The article does in fact begin with Manning going to Starbucks. The chosen drink is, we're told, a white-chocolate mocha.
Posts
121 comments:
He. He did all of this.
Tank likes a white chocolate mocha and an executed traitor.
She? Her?
No.
Althouse comes out punching this morning and lands a TKO. Most excellent!
She = anti-science.
Reality Winner, the latest millennial leaker/traitor, invoked "Chelsea Manning," according to court testimony of her mother.
From an ABC News report:
"Winner's mother, Bille Winner-Davis, and stepfather, Gary Davis, and a friend testified in court. Winner allegedly told her mother that she needed to 'go nuclear with the press' if she didn't get bond because that's how Chelsea Manning got out.
"When prosecutors questioned Winner-Davis about her daughter telling her to "play that angle," she said it was true.
"A federal judge denied Winner’s request for bond."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/nsa-contractor-reality-winner-wanted-burn-white-house/story?id=47912175
That we coddle and pardon such a person is a true signal of moral collapse and a refusal to set a standard (and yes, standards are tough) that members of our society obey if they are to be true to each other.
America's prosperity has made it possible for large groups of people to reinvent reality. Sex change operations are not a high priority when you don't know where your next meal is coming from. Gender identity is not a big issue when you are dodging bullets. Selfishly demanding sexual reassignment surgery is not popular in countries where basic health care is unknown.
"moral collapse" pretty much describes today's Dem party.
Didn't Assange publish her leaks?
If so, why is he hailed on Fox as hero and interviewed recently by Hannity?
Or is just the trans part that makes her a traitor?
He. He did all of this.
So cut off his dick.
Manning is a guy who thinks he's a girl and Reality Winner seems to be a girl with a boy's body. Note the k3Wl Red Dragon-style back tattoos.
I've been in the intel business off and on for the last 46 years. What Manning did (I refuse to use pronouns) risked the lives of our soldiers, our allies, our agents, and damaged the reputation of the US. I'd be happy to turn Manning into a Eunuch with a dull bayonet.
NYT readers clearly have more sense than its own editorial staff. My only question: Why are they still reading it?
Correction, manning was not pardoned, her sentence was commuted. Big difference.
Life imprisonment. Absolutely a traitor - put our allies and servicemembers at risk
"Why are you giving such coverage to a traitor who divulged secret military documents? As a retired military officer, I am outraged he was even pardoned." Why is this a question? We are talking about the New York Times. They like their fellow traitors over there. They gratuitously betrayed the Swift terror-financing program and they just recently outed a major anti-Iran operative. They applaud treason, as long as it hurts the US. The officer is a little slow on the uptake: prog elites have been at it for quite a while.
"It's all about her": well, sure it is. It is the essence of transgenderism: I, me, sovereign over the very nature of my sexuality, will decide whatever I damn well please to be--and FU if you insist on common norms or objective reality. Except, of course, that the hypersubjectivity of postmod transgenderism needs to be imposed by force, rammed down the throats of the plebs and promoted even at the expense of the national security.
If Chelsea is a girl why do the photos in the NYTimes article catch her manspreading all over the place?
Trans privilege?
Field Marshall Freder: "Correction, manning was not pardoned, her sentence was commuted. Big difference."
Oh, well, that changes everything then doesn't it? I guess the damage to our national security is all totes cool now as long as it's only a commutation and not a pardon. Besides, transgender!
Assange is no longer a hero of the revolution. It's one thing to leak info damaging to US security interests but to leak info damaging to the DNC and Hillary is a bridge too far. Snowden's star still shines bright, though his present circumstances do seem to indicate collusion with Putin and Russia. Well, no matter, he's photogenic and looks idealistic, like a young Alger Hiss. Chelsea Manning has her supporters, but penis amputations lack broad popular appeal. Her behavior just looks suspect, like there might be something other than patriotism involved in her betrayal. The jury's still out on Reality Winner. Reality had a rather mundane birth name, but she took the trouble to legally change it. This indicates to me that she has a bit of a need to call attention to herself. She might overplay her hand and lose sympathy........I wonder how many people with troubled backgrounds and security clearances will wreck their lives before this fad passes.
Mark said...
Didn't Assange publish her leaks?
If so, why is he hailed on Fox as hero and interviewed recently by Hannity?
Good questions.
"Freder Frederson said...
Correction, manning was not pardoned, her sentence was commuted. Big difference."
You're right. A pardon would allow Manning to not serve its 35 year sentence but to be released and be free. A commutation allows Manning to not serve its 35 year sentence but to be released and be free.
Big difference.
There's always been a certain brand of conservative who, when mocking a man that person considers less than manly, doesn't hesitate to refer to him as a "girl" or as "her."
Just sayin'.
Assange had no duty to keep them secret. Manning does. This isn't difficult.
Meh. I'll check the NYT readers pick later today after the Upper West wakes up and the leftists crawl up from the basement and eat breakfast mommy cooked for them as mommy was getting ready to go to her job.
Jason said...
Assange had no duty to keep them secret.
Manning and Assange were partners in this action. If you condemn one you condemn the other.
William has the better question. Why is Assange and Manning a hero when they indescrimitely release military secrets that have no news value.
But Assange is a traitor when he publishes material showing Obama Admin is abusing the NSA and violating Americans citizens rights. And releasing emails showing the Clinton's and DNC colluded to steal the election from Sanders. Why do you have Sanders so much. Because he's Jewish.
I disliked the Afghan leaks but supported the Snowden and Clinton leaks because they gave good information on serious issues facing the country.
"Mark said...
Didn't Assange publish her leaks?
If so, why is he hailed on Fox as hero and interviewed recently by Hannity?
Or is just the trans part that makes her a traitor?"
Do you really think that Manning's coming out as trans was the reason? Because that would make you a moron.
Sweet Jeebus Althouse, what's next, the preferred frappacino of the Waffen-SS? Spare me the drink choices of traitorous doofuses!
"Manning and Assange were partners in this action. If you condemn one you condemn the other."
-- Not really. Journalists, for example, don't have clearances (usually). If they get their hands on something, they can legally publish it, even if it may not be wise. The sources that provide it to them, though, CAN be punished, legally, if they had a clearance/broke a law to obtain the data. Which is why journalists normally protect their sources, and we have journalist shield laws in many (maybe all?) states.
I can think that Manning was wrong to steal the data and transfer it because Manning made a promise not to do so. We can also say that, while Assange should not have published it, it was a different kind of wrong than what Manning did.
I think Assange is, like many journalists, a slimy piece of garbage.
That said, he had no legal or ethical duty to keep the leaked info confidential. Heck, as a non-American he didn't even have a patriotic duty to do so.
Manning, Assange and Winner all had legal,ethical and patriotic duties not to leak. That's the difference.
Matthew Sablan said...
it was a different kind of wrong than what Manning did.
They were partners in the action. How is one wrongerer than the other, morally?
The Drill SGT said...
I refuse to use pronouns
Apparently not.
Ron, you have a drink in your profile art. Advertising gimlets or martinis?
Because one broke a trust granted to them, the other simply did something stupid with what was given them. Breaking faith with someone (or in this case, the entire country) is much worse than not; Manning would have stolen the documents whether or not Assange would publish the documents. Manning just would have had to find a different publisher.
How dare the Professor engage in dead-tagging.
Another thought. What is wrong with our screening for top secret clearance. Both Reality and Manning we're clearly psychologically damaged people. How did they get clearances.
Another area where extreme vetting should begin.
ARM: "Manning and Assange were partners in this action. If you condemn one you condemn the other"
This will come as quite a shock to the reporters at the NYT and Washington Post.
In particular, the NYT for this little episode where the NYT blew the cover off a completely legal capability which utilized financial transactions to track terrorists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html
But that was like totally cool 'cuz Bush was literally Hitler, just like Trump!
So it is OK for Sean Hannity to celebrate Assange, despite his facilitation of the actions of someone who 'broke faith' with the entire country? Those actions being the ones that 'broke faith' with the entire country.
Nailed it, Ann. Great job of illustrating two of the biggest issues the media has today, with regard to readership: (a) the left vs. right culture war (stories that are covered are framed as a leftist would frame them, and stories that are damaging to a leftist POV are ignored or buried), and (b) the total lack of proper and necessary context which we as readers need to rely on commenters to provide.
As a news consumer, who is more interested in truth and facts and actual analysis of the world around us, what VALUE does the NYT provide someone like me? Zero. Actually, it's less than zero, because it is pure virtue-signalling propaganda. It's not even interesting as a "here's how the other side thinks" intellectual exercise. It's relentlessly boring and predictable.
Who cares about Sean Hannity?
Why do they call Bradley Manning "she"? That is like the NYTimes writing a story about The Doctor, and trying to make us believe that David Tennant really is one regeneration of a 900-year-old time-traveling being from Gallifrey.
"How dare the Professor engage in dead-tagging."
I had to stop and think about what that meant, since "tagging" has a specific blog-related meaning.
That's just my original tag for this subject, going way back. I tried to change it the other day, but Blogger malfunctioned when I tried to add a new tag — I wanted to make it just "Manning" — to the whole group with the Bradley Manning tag.
And what was wrong with Benedict Arnold? Misunderstood patriot sounds right to me.
Matthew Sablan said...
Who cares about Sean Hannity?
So it is not OK for Sean Hannity to celebrate Assange?
I changed the tag to Manning without using the automatic thing that was malfunctioning. 13 posts, retagged. I normally keep the same tag, but sometimes I readjust.
For example, I used my "The Apprentice" tag for anything about Donald Trump until it got ridiculous.
I don't know if Hannity did that; I don't watch Hannity. That has nothing to do with what this thread is about, so I'd rather not squirrel this discussion.
But it has everything to do with our understanding of public attitudes towards Manning and whether or not they are based on sound moral principles or narrow partisan ones.
Benedict Arnold was a hero and a Patriot. Sadly, his life played out like a Greek tragedy. See www.benedictarnold.info
Manning's rationale for his actions seems to be this:
"Manning said the incident that had affected her the most was when 15 detainees had been arrested by the Iraqi Federal Police for printing anti-Iraqi literature. She was asked by the Army to find out who the "bad guys" were, and discovered that the detainees had followed what Manning said was a corruption trail within the Iraqi cabinet. She reported this to her commanding officer, but said "he didn't want to hear any of it"; she said the officer told her to help the Iraqi police find more detainees. Manning said it made her realize, "i was actively involved in something that i was completely against ...""
This seems at least somewhat morally defensible. Not sure the US Army should be covering up corruption within the Iraq government or facilitating the detection and punishment of those who attempt to bring this corruption to light.
And then, asking that the US taxpayers while she was in jail pay to help her change sexual identity from boy to girl
The above is an incomplete sentence reflecting an incomplete thought. Bradley Manning is still a boy, though he may believe otherwise. "Self-identifying" as Napoleon doesn't make one Emperor of the French, nor does a knife stroke make a woman out of a man.
I thought the NYTimes automatically deleted comments that were critical of Democrats.
And now, thanks to Obama, future traitors will think they can get away with very little punishment.
AReasonableMan said...
Matthew Sablan said...
it was a different kind of wrong than what Manning did.
They were partners in the action. How is one wrongerer than the other, morally?
6/12/17, 8:52 AM
The most obvious difference is that Assange is not an American citizen nor a member of the United States military sworn to defend and protect the US.
#WhiteChocolatePrivilege
This seems at least somewhat morally defensible. Not sure the US Army should be covering up corruption within the Iraq government or facilitating the detection and punishment of those who attempt to bring this corruption to light.
Every criminal will eventually fall back on the excuse that the powerful get away with worse crimes, which lays the foundation for a theory of deviance based on social standing. In Manning's case, the appeal to Marxist criminology would be framed in pseudo-sexual terms, the woman born in a man's body.." bullshit.
I'm guessing that's the last time the Times let's the readers comment on a Manning article. They'll stifle those who aren't on board with their narrative.
White chocolate mocha is a drink a man would think a woman would order.
Narcissist and a dangerous one at that.
AReasonableMan said...
This seems at least somewhat morally defensible.
If the only classified information that Bradley Manning had leaked was related to Iraqi and/or US wrongdoing, then that could be morally defensible.
It wasn't, so it's not.
White chocolate mocha is a drink a man would think a woman would order.
Kind of like the only type of person who thinks the name "Caitlyn" is a proper name for a 65 year old woman is a 65 year old man.
Too bad Barbara Boxer isn't in the Senate still. Remember when she said to Josh Steiner, the Bill Clinton aide who claimed that he had lied to his own diary, "You remind me of my son." Babs could say about the Manning person, "You remind me of my son and my daughter."
If we accept that Manning is/was a nut job then doesn't the primary moral responsibility fall on Assange? Since he is sane and it was he who determined what documents were released, what if anything was redacted from those documents and the timing of the releases?
I cannot for the life of me understand why he didn't have to serve out his full sentence.
John Henry
Not sure the US Army should be covering up corruption within the Iraq government or facilitating the detection and punishment of those who attempt to bring this corruption to light.
ARM is setting moral standards for the US Army. No doubt you were on top of the Abu Ghaib case, too.
The angry left sees moral failure on the right with no problem. Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch, of course, are just talking about the grandchildren she doesn't have.
Manning is a traitor and should have been shot. Sean Hannity is in the same business as the authors of the SWIFT article in the Times.
You do seem obsessed with him, though. Did you also disapprove of the SWIFT treason ?
And we should we "accept" anything at all about Manning? I don't accept the story about the 15 detainees. I don't accept that he is a "she." And I certainly don't accept that he hasn't yet been executed.
Blogger donald said... He. He did all of this.
Blogger tcrosse said... So cut off his dick.
Do that and he's still a he.
What's the #1 comment?
"He" has been, let's say, "guillotined." And "she" has no future in sexist USA. The punishment doesn't exactly fit the crime but it punishes.
Hmmm...I guess you guys would have excoriated Germans who had the moral courage to break the law and disclose to the world that Germany had built concentration camps where human beings were being exterminated by the thousands daily.
Manning did break the law, but in so doing the world got to view a videotape of a helicopter gun crew laughing it up as they murdered non-combatants walking in the street, as well as a man in a van who tried to come to their aid.
ARM wrote: If we accept that Manning is/was a nut job then doesn't the primary moral responsibility fall on Assange?
Yes, absolutely. However, insanity is a steep legal as well as an ethical hurdle. Manning is without reasonable doubt a dysfunctional personality suffering dysphoria and probably autogynephilia, and he probably longed for approval from someone like Assange, another outcast claiming hero status. Does this rise to the level of insanity? I'm doubtful...
What moral and ethical duty did Assange have to not publish Manning? He is not American, and owes no duty to America.
I mean, if the US Army dropped a bomb on him, I'd not shed a tear because he is at least partially culpable, but he owed no duty to the US.
Just like our spies owe no duty to the Soviets when we publish their stuff.
Assange was a hero to the left and people like ARM until he published stuff showing the Democrat party in a bad light. NOW he needs to be droned to death! Convenient, eh? I suspect the only reason Obama didn't kill Assange is because Assange is hiding in an embassy, and Obama doesn't want to set a precedent for ignoring diplomatic immunity (Obama probably expects to have to hide in the Iranian embassy at some point.)
Manning should have hung from the yardarm.
Speaking of Benedict Arnold, did you know that no less than George Washington himself ordered that Arnold be hung on the spot if anyone caught him? No trial needed.
--Vance
"ARM is setting moral standards for the US Army."
Well, someone should try to fill that vacuum!
Manning did break the law, but in so doing the world got to view a videotape of a helicopter gun crew laughing it up as they murdered non-combatants walking in the street, as well as a man in a van who tried to come to their aid.
Bullshit.
"I cannot for the life of me understand why he didn't have to serve out his full sentence."
Hey, at least Manning served 8 years.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Obama, et al. will never serve a day for their far more egregious crimes against humanity.
Justice, in Manning's case, was more than served.
Why oh why do millennials think it's ok to leak top secret information?
""ARM is setting moral standards for the US Army."
Well, someone should try to fill that vacuum!"
Says the former member of the Chinese 8th Route Army.
Regale us with your military experience, Cookie.
Regale us with your military experience, Cookie."
I'm happy to say I never added to America's wasteful expenditures on its ruinously high War budget by serving in the military.
...and Comrade Marvin goes full Godwin........
Is a white-chocolate mocha an acquired taste or a hard wired genetic predisposition?
It speaks volumes that the NYT can only find two comments two recommend....
I've come up with a compromise about the sex change op: a military doctor removes the offending parts, then they wake him up, give him a mirror and a scalpel, and let him finish the rest.
Mark,
There is a certain amount of hypocrisy involved in individual cases, but some distinctions make sense. Assange is like a newspaper- he gets the leaks or hacks and reveals them to the public- were he properly arrested for doing so, I wouldn't be writing saying he shouldn't face the consequences of breaking the law, and I write this as someone who applauds the role he plays in the world.
The same applies to Manning and Winner- I think leakers have a role to play in political hygiene, but you take your chances when you are breaking the law, and I expect you to pay the price if you get caught. It is a necessary thing, too- not all leakers are doing God's work and there needs to be a price to discourage treasonous activities. In other words, if you are going to leak, you had better believe personally that the ends is worth the price you pay if caught, not that you think the ends will let you skate free of consequences.
Also, I think in the case of Manning one really needs to consider this- would Obama have pardoned Manning without the gender identification issue? In other words, had Manning simply been Bradley Manning, heterosexual white male, I seriously doubt any political or reputational capital gets expended to release him, even by a progressive president.
There is a sense in which Bradley Manning did get the death penalty, at taxpayer expense.
"I cannot for the life of me understand why he didn't have to serve out his full sentence."
I am confident that were the question "should he serve his sentence" the answer would be yes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlzCPxxp8Ys
Robert Cook,
You're trying to have it both ways. You brag about not having been part of the US Army, yet you give us this lazy wheeze (beneath you, I think) that someone ought to be setting moral standards for it.
I get it, the "joke" is that no one is doing so now. It's not true, as you'd know if you'd ever served a day in your life. And all the objections you can raise about our having failed them don't change the fact that we have them, and they're more rigorous than you know, or can know.
Hmmm...I guess you guys would have excoriated Germans who had the moral courage to break the law and disclose to the world that Germany had built concentration camps where human beings were being exterminated by the thousands daily.
No, that would be German excoriating a German soldier. Slightly different.
Cookie is an expert on setting rules for things he has no experience with and knows nothing about.
SHE????
So damn selective. Next on trial: NYT, WAPO, CNN, et cetera. Redistributive leakers, selectively, of course. Accountable to "the People" and "our Posterity". Not exempt under the First Amendment.
Water Closet persists.
ganderson:
XY with elective female genderfication.
Blogger Robert Cook said...
ARM is setting moral standards for the US Army.
"Well, someone should try to fill that vacuum!"
Says the apologist for leftist totalitarianism. It must be hard for you trying to ignore what your ideological comrades have done. It makes your hatred of the United States Army understandable though because we stopped you and your murderous ideology.
Blogger Michael K said...
"Cookie is an expert on setting rules for things he has no experience with and knows nothing about."
That would be the kind interpretation. Leftist totalitarians don't really deserve kindness.
I don't think Cookie deserves to be called "totalitarian."
Driving a taxicab or teaching kindergarten are fairly untotalitarian occupations and they are probably close to his vocation.
Socialism is the ideology of two types. Those who are not very intelligent, even if they think they are, and those who are determined to live off the first type.
I'm not sure which he is.
"Socialism is the ideology of two types. Those who are not very intelligent, even if they think they are, and those who are determined to live off the first type."
It is clear the average leftist is a tool and an unconscious actor. But they are the people that break the windows and burn the reichstag. They are the ones running around Evergreen University as we speak with baseball bats looking for supporters of a leftist professor they have othered.
"They are the ones running around Evergreen University "
They are Nazis. National Socialists, if you will.
Like Jane Fonda, these people stew in their own juices.
I could care less. If I met them on the street, I would pay no more attention to them than bums holding their hand out.
If they touched me or my family, I would beat them to a pulp, and continue on.
"But it has everything to do with our understanding of public attitudes towards "Manning and whether or not they are based on sound moral principles or narrow partisan ones." - ARM
So, Sean Hannity speaks for the entire right? Is that correct?
Good to know, because I will now ascribe Every. Single. Word. uttered by some deranged leftist as speaking for the entire left.
Every word.
Every time.
Thanks for setting the rules.
I happen to agree with ARM...sort of. Assange is a shitbird enemy of the US. Since he is not a citizen and has sworn no oath, he's not a traitor and has no moral obligations with respect to the US. But he's still a shitbird and he lives in the same squalid hut of ignominy of anyone who would do us harm.
Manning, however, in another time, would have been shot and should have in this time. His crimes and those of Aldrich Ames are capital offenses. I wonder where we left our balls. I guess in the same red hazardous waste bag as Manning's.
- Krumhorn
"Glad the New York Times was not around 250 years ago, or you would be braying about 'Benedict Arnold: Misunderstood Patriot.'"
Indeed, considering that today's "liberals" are, in essence, the New Tories. I can picture them at Boston Harbo0r watching the original Tea Party, looking down through their lorgnettes, and saying, "Damme, why doesn't the rabble just quietly submit to their betters?"
I personally think the government was at fault for storing the nations secrets on a computer system, that can be accessed from anywhere, and by anyone cleared.
Back in my day we had three drawer safes. You might get in one drawer, but the people who could get in all three drawers would be one in a thousand.
You definitely couldn't open a drawer by yourself. It was two-man, and logged.
The Devil created computers so the human race would implode. It was a bar bet with God, who said it couldn't be done. Humans were too smart, he theorized.
Why would a retired officer even care? An active duty officer might care and they should but if you're retired just go fishing or something.
When did "socialist" become a synonym for "aristocrat"? They want to be a member of the self-selected minority that tells the majority what to do, and to live off of the labor of the workers.
Aristocracy, not rule by king, rule by warlord, or rule by the mob, has been the natural mode of human governance across time and space. Today's socialists are regressive, not progressive. Progressive periodicals, like Mother Jones, The New Republic, , and The Nation are written by educated, upper-middle-class bourgeois for an educated, upper-middle-class audience. You will never find them in a factory locker room, but you may find them in a corporate lounge or waiting room, next to Fortune and Wired.
"No, that would be German excoriating a German soldier. Slightly different."
So, your standards for whether a whistle-blower is doing the ethically right thing is if he or she is not a citizen of one's own country and is not revealing criminal secrets of one's own country.
@Matt, I gather you have trouble comprehending words like "honor," "integrity," "duty," or "discipline."
And neither does Cookie.
"Says the apologist for leftist totalitarianism. It must be hard for you trying to ignore what your ideological comrades have done. It makes your hatred of the United States Army understandable though because we stopped you and your murderous ideology."
Pure fantasy. Come back down to earth.
White chocolate mocha? Gee, we don't even need to ask about that final surgery.
"criminal secrets of one's own country."
Only if they exist only in your imagination.
Don't believe everything you think, Robert.
Matt,
"Why would a retired officer even care? An active duty officer might care and they should but if you're retired just go fishing or something."
Hmm - spent his working life under oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic....
I'm stumped. Why should he still care now that he's retired? You take off the uniform and all that goes out the window, right?
Lewis Wetzel asks rhetorically: When did "socialist" become a synonym for "aristocrat"?
In Soviet Russia the Party members were, if not aristocrats, at least the bourgeoisie.
Even the most populist of socialists becomes a sort of aristocrat when he has the power to give life-or-death commands to people. The aristocratic Erik von Kuehnnelt-Leddhin, who wrote the classic LEFTISM and who variously described himself as a monarchist and "a conservative Christian anarchist" (the latter, I suspect, tongue-in-cheek), once pointed out that Louis XIV at the height of his power could not levy an income tax, ban the sale of alcoholic beverages, or press a single Frenchman into military service. "But," he added, "the modern democratic politician can do all that and more."
No matter what you think of "whistleblowers", Manning did something literally unpardonable. Unlike Snowden, he didn't vet any of the information. There was too much of it - he just copied it and sent it off into the ether. For all Manning knew somewhere in that data were plans for an antimatter bomb, or lists of critical agents in North Korea. "Reckless" is an understatement.
Leaking classified data is illegal, and people who do it belong in jail. I can at least respect people who are doing it on principle, but Manning isn't one of them.
Yancey, thanks for the thoughtful answer.
I think we both have seen Assange and others hailed by both sides over time, when politically expedient. You draw a different line in the gray area where there is no perfect moral certitude than I do, but I appreciate your answer.
Cookie: Kim Jong-un has a position for a good comrade like you. Inquire at Party HQ, Pyongyang, North Korea. Good luck!
Oh, and I just read that Dennis Rodman is going there, too!
Nothing they say about Bradley Manning is too harsh.
Robert Cook said...
"Says the apologist for leftist totalitarianism. It must be hard for you trying to ignore what your ideological comrades have done. It makes your hatred of the United States Army understandable though because we stopped you and your murderous ideology."
Pure fantasy. Come back down to earth.
Name a country that your leftist brethren haven't turned into a murderous shithole. I can name dozens they have. Zimbabwe Cuba Soviet Union Vietnam North Korea Venezuela China Germany etc.
Yes I know you will start out with some European country. It is a rhetorical trap. Let us see if you are smart enough to figure out why.
Bradley is a "he", not a "she". The trendy idea that one can determine one's own gender is fatuous and absurd. People can't even pick how emotionally stable they are ... and that's the problem our lad Bradley needs to grapple with.
donald said...He. He did all of this.
Yes HE did.
Post a Comment