Is Bradley Manning a hero or a traitor?

[njlisa]

Now, I’m totally confused. I don’t agree that the UK and USA should’ve invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Would you please kindly explain how that translates into support for Bradley Manning?

One of the earlier posters (post 11) stated that Manning was doing the right thing by revealing secrets because the war is unjust. I assumed that your elaboration on the injustice of the war was buttressing that view. Bradley Manning was the initial focus of the discussion. I will happily remove my comment. And I invite you to explain your conclusions about Bradley Manning.

 

[Bergon]

One of the earlier posters (post 11) stated that Manning was doing the right thing by revealing secrets because the war is unjust. I assumed that your elaboration on the injustice of the war was buttressing that view. Bradley Manning was the initial focus of the discussion. I will happily remove my comment. And I invite you to explain your conclusions about Bradley Manning.

I stated my position in post #2. I haven’t reached a firm conclusion about Manning. I most certainly don’t support traitors. Should governments be able to do whatever they want without being held to account? My response is a definite no. Did Manning reveal too much? I can’t say for sure. Did he have an alternative? That depends on whether he should’ve revealed all or some of what he revealed. I believe if he had taken his concerns to his superiors or Congress, I doubt anything he revealed would’ve seen the light of day.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

The Taliban were giving safe haven to our enemies. That’s the difference. Al Qaeda has been largely defanged and Bin Laden has been eliminated. That’s a good thing in my book.

CCC 2309: The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
Debatable

• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
  Okay. I’ll give that
• there must be serious prospects of success;
  Debatable again, but will give benefit of the doubt
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
  The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
  Certainly not met. The bombing of funerals and aid workers and the promotion of more terrorism by extremists makes it so that the “War on Terrorism” cannot be considered a just war.
  These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
  The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

We negotiated with the Taliban. They refused to give up our sworn enemies. And military force was the only option to secure the safety of the U.S.

Bergon:

I believe HH Benedict XVI (when Joseph Card. Ratzinger) said there could be no justification for a just war in our times.

Card. Ratzinger did not say it as strongly as that. It was more of a musing that we should ask ourselves the question as to whether the fourth requirement (not cause more evil than the evil defeated) for a just war can ever be met in our age. I tend to believe that it is impossible for a modern war to be just, but there are legitimate other opinion

My comments are in magenta on the just war requirement. I can see some of the requirements for just war being met (no other means, possibly prospect of success), but the lasting harm caused is debatable. The just means of war, however, even if it can be accomplished in the modern age (don’t think so myself) has certainly not been followed since 9/11.

Going back to my comments on Manning, the public is beginning to turn on the war crimes that have been committed in the name of “national security”. I think that he and Snowden helped to achieve this. They acted against a government prosecuting an unjust war in order to raise public awareness about human rights violations on the part of the government against civilians abroad and at home. I think them justified in doing so.

 

[njlisa]

I stated my position in post #2. I haven’t reached a firm conclusion about Manning. I most certainly don’t support traitors. Should governments be able to do whatever they want without being held to account? My response is a definite no. Did Manning reveal too much? I can’t say for sure. Did he have an alternative? That depends on whether he should’ve revealed all or some of what he revealed. I believe if he had taken his concerns to his superiors or Congress, I doubt anything he revealed would’ve seen the light of day.

I sincerely apologize for misunderstanding your argument.

Card. Ratzinger did not say it as strongly as that. It was more of a musing that we should ask ourselves the question as to whether the fourth requirement (not cause more evil than the evil defeated) for a just war can ever be met in our age. I tend to believe that it is impossible for a modern war to be just, but there are legitimate other opinion

My comments are in magenta on the just war requirement. I can see some of the requirements for just war being met (no other means, possibly prospect of success), but the lasting harm caused is debatable. The just means of war, however, even if it can be accomplished in the modern age (don’t think so myself) has certainly not been followed since 9/11.

Going back to my comments on Manning, the public is beginning to turn on the war crimes that have been committed in the name of “national security”. I think that he and Snowden helped to achieve this. They acted against a government prosecuting an unjust war in order to raise public awareness about human rights violations on the part of the government against civilians abroad and at home. I think them justified in doing so.

So I stated (and subsequently deleted) the following argument.

Your argument, as I understand it, is that Manning, a 25-year-old PFC, has the right, based on his understanding, to violate his oath of service for the greater good – even though he later said he didn’t have that right.

His statement in court: “Your honor, regardless of my opinion or my assessment of documents such as these, it’s beyond my pay grade – it’s not my authority to make these decisions.”

(See CNN link in my original post)

He joined the service in 2007, when the war was well under way. And you think he has the judgment to release 700,000 documents, because of what the public thinks? He should have been an activist, not a soldier. And because he’s a soldier, he and his supporters should realize that he must take his medicine.

 

[Bergon]

I sincerely apologize for misunderstanding your argument.

Not required, but thank you. I didn’t help as I went off at a tangent not relevant to the thread.

 

[njlisa]

Not required, but thank you. I didn’t help as I went off at a tangent not relevant to the thread.

It happens to the best of us.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

I sincerely apologize for misunderstanding your argument.

So I stated (and subsequently deleted) the following argument.

Your argument, as I understand it, is that Manning, a 25-year-old PFC, has the right, based on his understanding, to violate his oath of service for the greater good – even though he later said he didn’t have that right.

His statement in court: “Your honor, regardless of my opinion or my assessment of documents such as these, it’s beyond my pay grade – it’s not my authority to make these decisions.”

(See CNN link in my original post)

He joined the service in 2007, when the war was well under way. And you think he has the judgment to release 700,000 documents, because of what the public thinks? He should have been an activist, not a soldier. And because he’s a soldier, he and his supporters should realize that he must take his medicine.

There is a question of whether the oath was a valid oath to take in the first place? Can you bind yourself by oath to commit a sin? If a government is waging an illegitimate war, the oath one takes doesn’t really have much meaning. I think Nuremberg pretty much eliminated “just following orders” as an excuse for not acting. Would I have leaked the documents to the public? Probably not, I would get out as fast as possible, and then try to influence public opinion as an activist. Do I think he made a choice that at the time was probably morally justifiable and that he acted with a clean conscience: yes.

His personal admission of guilt doesn’t really mean much, especially with all the jingoistic rhetoric that is floated in the US these days that could easily have influenced him after the fact. It matters what his conscience at the time dictated, and I believe that he could have easily released the documents with a clean conscience.

 

[njlisa]

There is a question of whether the oath was a valid oath to take in the first place? Can you bind yourself by oath to commit a sin? If a government is waging an illegitimate war, the oath one takes doesn’t really have much meaning. I think Nuremberg pretty much eliminated “just following orders” as an excuse for not acting. Would I have leaked the documents to the public? Probably not, I would get out as fast as possible, and then try to influence public opinion as an activist. Do I think he made a choice that at the time was probably morally justifiable and that he acted with a clean conscience: yes.

His personal admission of guilt doesn’t really mean much, especially with all the jingoistic rhetoric that is floated in the US these days that could easily have influenced him after the fact. It matters what his conscience at the time dictated, and I believe that he could have easily released the documents with a clean conscience.

I think it’s an overstatement to compare the U.S. to Nazi Germany. If we were in Nazi Germany, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

I think it’s an overstatement to compare the U.S. to Nazi Germany. If we were in Nazi Germany, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

I wasn’t saying that our war crimes were nearly as bad as the Nazi’s. I was simply stating that Nuremberg ended the idea that one can claim cover behind a military oath for supporting an unjust war.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Watch it and then be your own judge. I just put it out there for the benefit of discussion.

So I can safely assume the following?
-That no, the Apache crew does not make any comments similar to the ones I’ve listed
-That you have no actual idea or experience as to how war really operates and therefore have no clue as to what you are talking about in regards to the video
-That you have no idea that “atrocity” does actually have a specific definition attached to it in regards to warfare and the laws of war and isn’t just a term thrown around in the course of a conversation
-That you see no issue accusing individuals of immoral and illegal actions (if the actions in the video= atrocity than it logically follows that those committing them are guilty of war crimes) as long as you are just “putting it out there for the benefit of discussion” and use a smiley at the end of your comment

Does that mean I can accuse you of some heinous crime and not have to worry about my accusation being reported to the mods or some other legal action (such as being sued for slander) as long as I’m just “putting it out there for the benefit of discussion”?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Cardinal Ratzinger once mused that it may be impossible for a just war to exist at all in the modern world, because the nature of modern warfare. Cardinal Ottaviani (Prefect of the Holy Office during Vatican, and a member of the traditionalist camp during the Council) wanted the Council to declare that all forms of modern warfare were unjust. The Council did not decree this, so it is not part of the Magisterium, but regardless, it is a legitimate belief for Catholics to hold.

All that being said, I think that the US war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and previously in Iraq, are unjust, and thus I believe that Bradley Manning was justified in revealing the secrets of an unjust war.

Big difference between releasing info on stuff you know/think is illegal/immoral and just releasing everything you can get you hands on.

Snowden- release of specific info related to a specific action(s) of the government that he thinks is immoral/illegal; not released- all the other non-related info he had access to

Manning- release of all info he could get his hands on, no real attempt to determine the morality/legality of the government’s actions related to the info he released

 

[njlisa]

So I can safely assume the following?
-That no, the Apache crew does not make any comments similar to the ones I’ve listed
-That you have no actual idea or experience as to how war really operates and therefore have no clue as to what you are talking about in regards to the video
-That you have no idea that “atrocity” does actually have a specific definition attached to it in regards to warfare and the laws of war and isn’t just a term thrown around in the course of a conversation
-That you see no issue accusing individuals of immoral and illegal actions (if the actions in the video= atrocity than it logically follows that those committing them are guilty of war crimes) as long as you are just “putting it out there for the benefit of discussion” and use a smiley at the end of your comment

Does that mean I can accuse you of some heinous crime and not have to worry about my accusation being reported to the mods or some other legal action (such as being sued for slander) as long as I’m just “putting it out there for the benefit of discussion”?

You can’t assume anything until you watch the video and or more thoroughly investigate the issue yourself. And if you want to accuse me of something, feel free. (Is that a threat?) I’m not going to back down. If you don’t want to spend the time watching it, then I don’t see where your accusations are coming from. Innocent people were killed. Disturbing things were said on the video. I’m not an expert on the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I don’t know whether I misused the word atrocity in a legal sense.

I saw two little girls blown to bits while their father tried to help get injured people off the street. I saw injured people, down on the ground shot dead.

I you look at all my comments, I think you’d see that I’m not advocating the release of these documents.

Big difference between releasing info on stuff you know/think is illegal/immoral and just releasing everything you can get you hands on.

Snowden- release of specific info related to a specific action(s) of the government that he thinks is immoral/illegal; not released- all the other non-related info he had access to

Manning- release of all info he could get his hands on, no real attempt to determine the morality/legality of the government’s actions related to the info he released

In any case, Manning took an oath as a member of the service, and he had no business releasing the information. He has admitted as much himself, as I have repeatedly noted above.

 

[Brendan_64]

He’s a traitor. If he really wanted to blow the whistle, he should have conveyed the information to his superiors.

Who would have simply ignored it.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

In any case, Manning took an oath as a member of the service, and he had no business releasing the information. He has admitted as much himself, as I have repeatedly noted above.

Again, there is a question as to whether the oath is binding in conscience since the war being waged was unjust (as the video you linked to shows). Also, his own feeling of guilt and his guilt under U.S. law really don’t have anything to do with the morality of the act.

Many things can influence that feeling of guilt, and being interrogated by the U.S. military and made to think that you had aided the enemy (which even a military judge said he didn’t…) may have a tendency to make you feel guilty.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Who would have simply ignored it.

Would you say that he’s a hero?

 

[Brendan_64]

Would you say that he’s a hero?

A traioor to whom? To whom do we owe our allegiances here on Earth?

I’m simply saying that if he proceeded through the official channels he would most likely have been ignored.

I do think that his sentence is far too extreme.

 

[njlisa]

Again, there is a question as to whether the oath is binding in conscience since the war being waged was unjust (as the video you linked to shows). Also, his own feeling of guilt and his guilt under U.S. law really don’t have anything to do with the morality of the act.

Many things can influence that feeling of guilt, and being interrogated by the U.S. military and made to think that you had aided the enemy (which even a military judge said he didn’t…) may have a tendency to make you feel guilty.

I think Father Frank Pavone nails down some of the finer points of this issue in “When Is It Okay to Disobey?”

catholic.com/magazine/articles/when-is-it-okay-to-disobey

 

[StJudeprayforme]

I think Father Frank Pavone nails down some of the finer points of this issue in “When Is It Okay to Disobey?”

catholic.com/magazine/articles/when-is-it-okay-to-disobey

It seems to me that if the government is waging an unjust war, then a soldier would be within his rights to disobey, according to that link you provided, since the law of the government requiring that war crimes be covered up by soldiers cannot possibly square with the moral law.

 

[njlisa]

It seems to me that if the government is waging an unjust war, then a soldier would be within his rights to disobey, according to that link you provided, since the law of the government requiring that war crimes be covered up by soldiers cannot possibly square with the moral law.

You make a good case.

 

[TK421]

I don’t understand the reason for why it may be impossible for modern warfare to be impossible to be a just war. It is arguably easier for a modern war to be just than it was in the past. The reason? Communication & control. In past centuries you were accepting the inevitable reality that war would be teeming with chaos. You’d have armies of peasants being conscripted by independent vassals, who in turn swore a fealty to a king, who was basically a head vassal among them. They’d all gather together in a discombobulated mass of different coats of arms and wage a war, often times with different nobleman each being largely independent in controlling their different territories. There was vary limited means of controlling the masses of conscripts. Treaties did not bear the accountability that they do in our far more connected & organized modern world. Exchange of prisoners and the acceptance of surrender was a **** shoot. Trials and punishment towards soldiers that stepped out of line or sometimes did absolutely atrocious deeds were often forgotten in the chaos, overlooked, or even applauded. War was chaotic and it was an inevitability reality even for a war that seemed to abundantly meet the perquisites of a just war.

The expansion of control, checks & balances, and organizational structure have made a modern military more accountable to the public than they have ever been before. Major decisions to intervene in an event are often done with a large amount of international cooperation and discussion. Civilian casualties have decreased enormously compared to many of the wars waged in the medieval ages. 35+ million people died in the Chinese An Shi Rebellion, which was over a thousand years ago. That makes the ~70 million that died in WW2 in the population of the modern world almost a drop in a bucket in comparison, and WW2 is frequently believed to be the absolute most brutal war in history. Not by a long shot.