Is Bradley Manning a hero or a traitor?

[Robert_Sock]

Not at all. You ask me is Bradley Manning completely innocent. I simply ask you to specify of what crime you are referring, and under whose law.

I’m talking about the trial as a whole, under military law; should the military have relented due to BM’s moral conscience?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I included the line on torture to be comprehensive.

The CIA articles show that the overall policy of the U.S. government in the war effort are unjust. The drone war in Pakistan is more documented than others. The best documentation of the atrocities which Manning leaked are the leaked videos themselves. Manning himself said that he did not leak anything that would harm U.S. troops. That is why he was acquitted of aiding the enemy, so your claim about him releasing whatever he could get his hands on isn’t even believed by the U.S. military.

A member of the IRS could have gone to the public leaking the immoral actions of the IRS, yes.

They show that anyone with an ounce of commonsense would know that the tactics are killing first responders treating the wounded. They also show that funerals (with civilians) are being deliberately targeted.

It does mean that the normal conditions that bind conscience to follow civil positive law do not exist in certain matters. As such, it would be completely moral to disregard restrictions ordering the coverup of atrocities by the U.S. military.

1. I didn’t ask if an IRS employee was correct in releasing info related to immorality/illegality on the part of the IRS, I asked if said employee could release unrelated info (tax records of private citizens) based on the fact the IRS was engaging in immorality/illegality (2 wrongs make a right reasoning).
2. We are supposed to believe the over half million classified documents Mr. Manning released all relate to illegal actions of the government in the wars? Even the ones that predate the wars? And that Mr. Manning had the time to actually do at least a basic review of these documents to ensure that they somehow relate to the government’s illegal activities? Really?
3. In a war in which one side does not use uniforms, does not use marked vehicles, and does it’s best to pass itself off as civilians and in which the populace knows this and knows that the other side does targeted strikes against the first side and that the basic human reaction to some place randomly blowing up (especially in a warzone) is to go the other way, common sense would dictate that individuals rushing to the site of a military strike are more than likely combatants.
4. And no, your articles don’t actually show anything. What they do is cite parts of the laws concerning war and then interpret events to fit their narrative.

 

[Reep]

Even BM now believes that what he did was wrong.

I wouldn’t put much stock in what BM says on the eve of his sentencing. He’s probably not dumb enough to keep poking the beast that has had him in solitary for years already.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

1. I didn’t ask if an IRS employee was correct in releasing info related to immorality/illegality on the part of the IRS, I asked if said employee could release unrelated info (tax records of private citizens) based on the fact the IRS was engaging in immorality/illegality (2 wrongs make a right reasoning).

Not really relevant.

1. We are supposed to believe the over half million classified documents Mr. Manning released all relate to illegal actions of the government in the wars? Even the ones that predate the wars? And that Mr. Manning had the time to actually do at least a basic review of these documents to ensure that they somehow relate to the government’s illegal activities? Really?

The military judge who acquitted him of aiding the enemy believed him.

1. In a war in which one side does not use uniforms, does not use marked vehicles, and does it’s best to pass itself off as civilians and in which the populace knows this and knows that the other side does targeted strikes against the first side and that the basic human reaction to some place randomly blowing up (especially in a warzone) is to go the other way, common sense would dictate that individuals rushing to the site of a military strike are more than likely combatants.

Or, the people running towards a bombed home in a residential area could be trying to provide aid? Just a thought. That, and the fact that it has been reported on widely enough that the government is killing first responders that prudence dictates a rethinking of the policy unless you want to be responsible for civilian deaths by negligence (assuming the intentions were good to begin with.)

Also, there is no way to justify the bombing of a funeral, even if every single member of that funeral is a combatant. People have a right to bury their dead. This is one of the acts of mercy.

1. And no, your articles don’t actually show anything. What they do is cite parts of the laws concerning war and then interpret events to fit their narrative.

No, they show proof of the government’s active targeting of civilians, and then claiming them to be military targets by virtue of their being killed in a war zone. I’m sorry, as you pointed out above, in the modern world, that isn’t how it works. This may be part of the reason Card. Ratzinger said we should question whether there is even such a thing as a just war anymore.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

What is the Churches interpretation of Romans? Please provide a source.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 2242:

The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” “We must obey God rather than men”:

When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the law of the gospel.

 

[Reep]

If my mental health would not have broken down, I would be willing to fight.

You are right about the mental health. The trouble these days is not a willingness to fight an enemy. It’s being willing to participate (directly and indirectly) in killing so many many innocents. The collateral damage is so bad that suicide is now the great killer of veterans.

Read the letter that Iraq veteran and machine gunner Daniel Somers wrote to his family before he killed himself on June 10, 2013. He suffered from PTSD and traumatic brain injury and several other war-related conditions. In addition to his physical suffering, he lamented the things his government had made him do and see:

You must not blame yourself. The simple truth is this: During my first deployment,* I was made to participate in things, the enormity of which is hard to describe. War crimes, crimes against humanity. Though I did not participate willingly**, and made what I thought was my best effort to stop these events, there are some things that a person simply can not come back from. I take some pride in that, actually, as to move on in life after being part of such a thing would be the mark of a sociopath in my mind. These things go far beyond what most are even aware of.

To force me to do these things and then participate in the ensuing coverup is more than any government has the right to demand. *

Rather than obey orders to do evil and help cover it up, it is the duty of everyone to refuse; the duty to disclose. No oath can bind any man to such silence in that situation. .

 

[Reep]

Government has no business keeping secrets about the crimes it commits against its own citizens and the innocent, but just in case . . .

Wikileaks Memorial Wall

 

[Robert_Sock]

My reply to post #143

This does not apply to Romans, and I’m not sure it applies to BM’s case. According to the CCC, BM was not obliged to follow direct orders in which ‘innocent’ civilians were being killed (and I would not have), but it does not really relate to handing over classified info.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Do we at least agree that we live in a miserable and corrupt world?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=813248

 

[Brendan_64]

I’m talking about the trial as a whole, under military law; should the military have relented due to BM’s moral conscience?

Charges of:

Aiding the enemy - He was found innocent on this charge

Espionage - He should have not been found guilty of charges of espionage

Leaking information - Yes

He was not a spy, yet he faces a sentence of up to 136 years, predominantly for espionage.

Amnesty International said that, “It’s hard not to draw the conclusion that Manning’s trial was about sending a message,” “The U.S. government will come after you, no holds barred, if you’re thinking of revealing evidence of its unlawful behavior.”

The message sent out is clear, “If you work for us and you have information about any war-crimes or atrocities that we are committing, then hold your tongue and go along with it, or you’ll face life imprisonment, or worse as just remeber that we tried to do Bradley Manning for aiding the enemy, in which case we could have executed him.”

 

[Brendan_64]

Do we at least agree that we live in a miserable and corrupt world?

Agreed.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

My reply to post #143

This does not apply to Romans, and I’m not sure it applies to BM’s case. According to the CCC, BM was not obliged to follow direct orders in which ‘innocent’ civilians were being killed (and I would not have), but it does not really relate to handing over classified info.

How does it not apply to Romans? It is saying that one cannot be bound by a government law when it is unjust.

If he believed that by handing over classified material and exposing war crimes he would help expose the government’s actions and hopefully prevent future atrocities, then it most definitely applies to him

 

[oldcatholicguy]

No, they show proof of the government’s active targeting of civilians, and then claiming them to be military targets by virtue of their being killed in a war zone. I’m sorry, as you pointed out above, in the modern world, that isn’t how it works. This may be part of the reason Card. Ratzinger said we should question whether there is even such a thing as a just war anymore.

Not really relevant.
It’s very relevant. Releasing the tax records of private citizens that have nothing to do with the illegal/immoral actions of the IRS is an illegal and immoral act itself. Mr. Manning did a shotgun release of classified info with no care or concern as to the connection the info had to the illegal/immoral acts he thought the government was undertaking. It’s only not relevant if you take the rather non-Catholic thought process of the ends (in this case showing the illegal/immoral actions of the government) justify the means (releasing hundreds of thousands of unrelated classified documents, some of which predate the war). As I’ve pointed out earlier in this thread, Mr. Manning’s actions are far different than Mr. Snowden’s (who bothered to only release info actually related to the immoral/illegal actions of the government).

The military judge who acquitted him of aiding the enemy believed him.
How exactly does your above address my point- “We are supposed to believe the over half million classified documents Mr. Manning released all relate to illegal actions of the government in the wars? Even the ones that predate the wars? And that Mr. Manning had the time to actually do at least a basic review of these documents to ensure that they somehow relate to the government’s illegal activities? Really?”

Being acquitted of aiding the enemy does not equate to all the documents he released related to illegal/immoral actions of the government. What it equates to is that the military judge did not find enough evidence that Mr. Manning was trying to aid the enemy. Please answer my point, not side step it.

Or, the people running towards a bombed home in a residential area could be trying to provide aid? Just a thought. That, and the fact that it has been reported on widely enough that the government is killing first responders that prudence dictates a rethinking of the policy unless you want to be responsible for civilian deaths by negligence (assuming the intentions were good to begin with.)

A bank robber runs out of a bank with a gun in one hand and bag of cash in the other. The police engage him and he is wounded. A van zips out of nowhere, the passengers jump out and load the wounded bank robber into the back. I guess in your world the police should use prudence and common sense and know that the van is full of innocent civilians who are taking the wounded bank robber to the hospital.

No, they show proof of the government’s active targeting of civilians, and then claiming them to be military targets by virtue of their being killed in a war zone.
Referencing my example above- News flash- The law dictates that police are not allowed to engage or endanger civilians. This just in, police shot up a civilian vehicle that was loading a wounded individual, whom the police shot without first proving beyond doubt he was a bank robber. We believe that the civilians in the shot up vehicle were taking the wounded man to the hospital. Police are now trying to claim that the vehicle and occupants were working with the shot man (who they now claim robbed a bank).

Not that hard to spin a story (just look at the spin the media is trying to put on the Holy Father’s recent comments concerning homosexuals). Words like “reported,” “unconfirmed,” “suspected,” “believe,” “unnamed sources,” etc should set off your “there’s more than they are reporting” alarm or your “what are they trying to sell me” alert.

I’m sorry, as you pointed out above, in the modern world, that isn’t how it works. This may be part of the reason Card. Ratzinger said we should question whether there is even such a thing as a just war anymore.

I have a feeling you are not correctly reporting what Card. Ratzinger stated on the subject given that just war is fully founded on Church teachings. It’s actually far easier today to fight a just war than ever before. To actually start a just war is another matter (and I think this is what Card. Ratzinger was addressing).

 

[StJudeprayforme]

.
It’s very relevant. Releasing the tax records of private citizens that have nothing to do with the illegal/immoral actions of the IRS is an illegal and immoral act itself. Mr. Manning did a shotgun release of classified info with no care or concern as to the connection the info had to the illegal/immoral acts he thought the government was undertaking. It’s only not relevant if you take the rather non-Catholic thought process of the ends (in this case showing the illegal/immoral actions of the government) justify the means (releasing hundreds of thousands of unrelated classified documents, some of which predate the war). As I’ve pointed out earlier in this thread, Mr. Manning’s actions are far different than Mr. Snowden’s (who bothered to only release info actually related to the immoral/illegal actions of the government).

How exactly does your above address my point- “We are supposed to believe the over half million classified documents Mr. Manning released all relate to illegal actions of the government in the wars? Even the ones that predate the wars? And that Mr. Manning had the time to actually do at least a basic review of these documents to ensure that they somehow relate to the government’s illegal activities? Really?”

Being acquitted of aiding the enemy does not equate to all the documents he released related to illegal/immoral actions of the government. What it equates to is that the military judge did not find enough evidence that Mr. Manning was trying to aid the enemy. Please answer my point, not side step it.

Manning’s defense to the aiding the enemy charge was that he did not release any documents that would endanger the lives of U.S. soldiers or that would aid the enemy. The military judge accepted this defense when she acquitted him. I’m sure she took into consideration all your points, but ultimately, she disagreed with the position you took. To me, this implies that it would be much different than the release of tax payers personal information.

A bank robber runs out of a bank with a gun in one hand and bag of cash in the other. The police engage him and he is wounded. A van zips out of nowhere, the passengers jump out and load the wounded bank robber into the back. I guess in your world the police should use prudence and common sense and know that the van is full of innocent civilians who are taking the wounded bank robber to the hospital.

The police example is night and day. A better example would be 9/11 or the Boston bombings. Fire fighters rushed up the towers and to the sight of the explosions, priests and first responders rushed to the site of both attacks as well. That is generally what happens anywhere there is a fire or that bombs exploded. The people rushing away are the people who are not first responders. Those rushing into the building are those who are providing aid. Why would a combatant run towards an area where he is most likely to get killed? That doesn’t really make sense.

Referencing my example above- News flash- The law dictates that police are not allowed to engage or endanger civilians. This just in, police shot up a civilian vehicle that was loading a wounded individual, whom the police shot without first proving beyond doubt he was a bank robber. We believe that the civilians in the shot up vehicle were taking the wounded man to the hospital. Police are now trying to claim that the vehicle and occupants were working with the shot man (who they now claim robbed a bank).

Not that hard to spin a story (just look at the spin the media is trying to put on the Holy Father’s recent comments concerning homosexuals). Words like “reported,” “unconfirmed,” “suspected,” “believe,” “unnamed sources,” etc should set off your “there’s more than they are reporting” alarm or your “what are they trying to sell me” alert.

Civilian matter. It is a war crime to shoot at medics in a war zone (Geneva Convention, Art. 24). So, if we transfer your example to a war zone, the police would be obligated NOT to shoot into the vehicle.

Also, the U.N., The NYT, Business Insider, NYU School of Law, and The Bureau for Investigative Journalism are a diverse enough group of institutions, that I am willing to say that there is substantial evidence on this matter, even if “spin” does exist.

I have a feeling you are not correctly reporting what Card. Ratzinger stated on the subject given that just war is fully founded on Church teachings. It’s actually far easier today to fight a just war than ever before. To actually start a just war is another matter (and I think this is what Card. Ratzinger was addressing).

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

**Q: **Eminence, a topical question that in a certain sense is inherent to the Catechism: Does the Anglo-American war against Iraq fit the canons of a “just war”?
**Cardinal Ratzinger: ** …]

The Holy Father’s judgment is also convincing from the rational point of view: There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a “just war.”

Sound to me like he is addressing what we are quibbling about.

 

[Robert_Sock]

How does it not apply to Romans? It is saying that one cannot be bound by a government law when it is unjust.

If he believed that by handing over classified material and exposing war crimes he would help expose the government’s actions and hopefully prevent future atrocities, then it most definitely applies to him

OK, I concede on Romans. And yes, one’s moral conscience needs to be considered, but I still see fine lines that were crossed unnecessarily. BM’s leak of classified information was uncalled for; he ought to have taken the issue up with his superiors. Yes, his superiors would likely have ignored it, but perhaps rightfully so. Again, there were several cases where servicemen killed innocent civilians and were convicted under military law. Why?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Manning’s defense to the aiding the enemy charge was that he did not release any documents that would endanger the lives of U.S. soldiers or that would aid the enemy. The military judge accepted this defense when she acquitted him. I’m sure she took into consideration all your points, but ultimately, she disagreed with the position you took. To me, this implies that it would be much different than the release of tax payers personal information.
None of which has anything to do with Mr. Manning releasing info that in no way relates to what he assumed to be illegal/immoral actions on the part of the government (and for the sake of argument let us assume he his assumption was correct). As I’ve stated before, the means actually matter. Mr. Manning’s means do not fit what the Church would describe as a moral. Here’s a checklist-
-Did he report the illegalities/immoralities to his superiors or other individuals who actually have the authority to a)know the info and b)take action (you know, like law enforcement agencies)? Nope
-Did he violate his oath by releasing info concerning moral and legal actions by the government? Yep
-Did he attempt to release just info concerning immoral/illegal actions by the government? Nope
-Did he use any criteria to evaluate the unintentional risks he was creating to others by releasing the info? Nope

Need I go on?

The police example is night and day. A better example would be 9/11 or the Boston bombings. Fire fighters rushed up the towers and to the sight of the explosions, priests and first responders rushed to the site of both attacks as well. That is generally what happens anywhere there is a fire or that bombs exploded. The people rushing away are the people who are not first responders. Those rushing into the building are those who are providing aid. Why would a combatant run towards an area where he is most likely to get killed? That doesn’t really make sense

You don’t have any experience with the military do you? (I’m not trying to be mean or rude, I’m trying to figure out where you are coming from in your thought process. Ask any random soldier if the guy running toward combat is a non-combatant first responder or a combatant and almost all of them will answer combatant. Soldiers run toward combat, civilians run away from it.)

Civilian matter. It is a war crime to shoot at medics in a war zone (Geneva Convention, Art. 24). So, if we transfer your example to a war zone, the police would be obligated NOT to shoot into the vehicle.
Really? So on the spur of the moment in the middle of a fire fight the police are supposed to know that an unmarked vehicle filled with non-uniformed individuals driving into the fire fight and picking up the wounded bank robber are really medics? Sure.

As for medics, what exactly does an insurgent medic look like? Or an insurgent ambulance look like? From my experience both look the same as, respectively, a non-combatant and a combatant and a non-combatant vehicle and a combatant vehicle. Is it the fault of the drone operator, Apache crew, or guy on the ground that the other side has decided not to clearly identify medics and ambulances? Nope. Has our military done it’s best to enact ROEs that limit the amount of unintentional non-combatant deaths? Yep. Are these unintentional deaths a tragedy? Yep. Murder/war crime? Nope.

Also, the U.N., The NYT, Business Insider, NYU School of Law, and The Bureau for Investigative Journalism are a diverse enough group of institutions, that I am willing to say that there is substantial evidence on this matter, even if “spin” does exist.

Gee, one would have thought Mr. Manning would have released documents that prove the allegations of this diverse group. Or even gave support for the allegations. I wonder why none of them referenced such documents. Surely there has to be at least one document in the over half million he released that support these allegations.

Sound to me like he is addressing what we are quibbling about.
First, he was referencing what BJPtG’s thoughts were on the subject, and second it doesn’t sound like he addressing what we are discussing at all. It sounds to me like he is talking about waging a just war, not about how it is waged.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

None of which has anything to do with Mr. Manning releasing info that in no way relates to what he assumed to be illegal/immoral actions on the part of the government (and for the sake of argument let us assume he his assumption was correct). As I’ve stated before, the means actually matter. Mr. Manning’s means do not fit what the Church would describe as a moral. Here’s a checklist-
-Did he report the illegalities/immoralities to his superiors or other individuals who actually have the authority to a)know the info and b)take action (you know, like law enforcement agencies)? Nope
-Did he violate his oath by releasing info concerning moral and legal actions by the government? Yep
-Did he attempt to release just info concerning immoral/illegal actions by the government? Nope
-Did he use any criteria to evaluate the unintentional risks he was creating to others by releasing the info? Nope

Need I go on?

His defense was that he purposefully did not release documents that would endanger lives. The military judge accepted this defense. This is not sidestepping the question, but is at the heart of the matter. If a military judge is satisfied to the explanation of the above questions in favour of Mr. Manning, than I am as well.

You don’t have any experience with the military do you? (I’m not trying to be mean or rude, I’m trying to figure out where you are coming from in your thought process. Ask any random soldier if the guy running toward combat is a non-combatant first responder or a combatant and almost all of them will answer combatant. Soldiers run toward combat, civilians run away from it.)

Except this isn’t combat. There are no soldiers on the ground. This was a bombing. Rescue workers run towards bombings. Think 9/11.

Really? So on the spur of the moment in the middle of a fire fight the police are supposed to know that an unmarked vehicle filled with non-uniformed individuals driving into the fire fight and picking up the wounded bank robber are really medics? Sure.

As for medics, what exactly does an insurgent medic look like? Or an insurgent ambulance look like? From my experience both look the same as, respectively, a non-combatant and a combatant and a non-combatant vehicle and a combatant vehicle. Is it the fault of the drone operator, Apache crew, or guy on the ground that the other side has decided not to clearly identify medics and ambulances? Nope. Has our military done it’s best to enact ROEs that limit the amount of unintentional non-combatant deaths? Yep. Are these unintentional deaths a tragedy? Yep. Murder/war crime? Nope.

Considering that,a) the examples provided are not the middle of a fire fight, but bombings and b) the fact that this is not the police we are talking about, but the military trying to strike insurgents within a civilian population, then yes, they should take the caution and not do a second strike within minutes, especially considering all the reporting on this that has made it clear that first responders are being harmed.

Your approach amounts to “Kill them all, let God decide.”

Gee, one would have thought Mr. Manning would have released documents that prove the allegations of this diverse group. Or even gave support for the allegations. I wonder why none of them referenced such documents. Surely there has to be at least one document in the over half million he released that support these allegations.

Different set of allegations. I am trying to show clearly that the U.S. war is not just and that Mr. Manning would have had reason to believe this.

First, he was referencing what BJPtG’s thoughts were on the subject, and second it doesn’t sound like he addressing what we are discussing at all. It sounds to me like he is talking about waging a just war, not about how it is waged.

No, he wasn’t. He addressed JPII’s thoughts the paragraph above. This was a secondary commentary on the fact that reason leads us to ask the question on whether it is possible for a just war to be waged. Considering that he reference the destructive power of modern weapons against non-combatant groups, it seems to me your claim that he is solely talking about declaring war seems extremely counterintuitive. His reference to the destructive power of modern war against non-combatants is at the heart of this whole discussion.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

His defense was that he purposefully did not release documents that would endanger lives. The military judge accepted this defense. This is not sidestepping the question, but is at the heart of the matter. If a military judge is satisfied to the explanation of the above questions in favour of Mr. Manning, than I am as well.

Except this isn’t combat. There are no soldiers on the ground. This was a bombing. Rescue workers run towards bombings. Think 9/11.

Considering that,a) the examples provided are not the middle of a fire fight, but bombings and b) the fact that this is not the police we are talking about, but the military trying to strike insurgents within a civilian population, then yes, they should take the caution and not do a second strike within minutes, especially considering all the reporting on this that has made it clear that first responders are being harmed.

Your approach amounts to “Kill them all, let God decide.”

Different set of allegations. I am trying to show clearly that the U.S. war is not just and that Mr. Manning would have had reason to believe this.

No, he wasn’t. He addressed JPII’s thoughts the paragraph above. This was a secondary commentary on the fact that reason leads us to ask the question on whether it is possible for a just war to be waged. Considering that he reference the destructive power of modern weapons against non-combatant groups, it seems to me your claim that he is solely talking about declaring war seems extremely counterintuitive. His reference to the destructive power of modern war against non-combatants is at the heart of this whole discussion.

I’m done. It’s clear to me you’re going to rationalize anything and everything in order to justify Mr. Manning’s actions. The bottom line is that Mr. Manning was a disgruntled employee who abused his position; and that the only fundamental difference between Mr. Manning’s actions and the actions of the government exposed by Mr. Snowden is that the government hasn’t made public all the documents it’s accessed.