So if he wasn't aiding the enemy, but he was committing espionage, then who was he spying for? The American people? Guess I'd call that a pretty honorable service.

so far, so fair... he is not guilty of aiding the enemy but damned if he can deny the other charges... at least they are fair charges... he knew being a whistleblower would have consequences... now find him guilty and commute his sentence... dishonorable discharge... symbolic punishments with a nod to the actual good he did do.

i for one was surprised how many wedding parties we blew up that didnt get reported on.... if just one of the survivors decides to strike back, how can we not see that coming

My feeling is that the one's that perpetrated the atrocities are the one's who aided the enemy, not the one who called them out on the BS and lies. If Manning had made up lies about American tactics and made the lies public, he would be at fault.
When 'America' (or it's government) acts with evil intent then lies about it and is caught, the 'whistle blower' is supposed to get 10% of what he saves the government by ending the offending program (in this case, 2 wars). Perhaps that's why they call him a terrorist traitor, they don't want to have to pay him the $200 Billion that SHOULD (but won't) be saved by ending the wars, or at least by ending the tactics that are certain to create new enemies and continue the 'war' in perpetuity.

"Bradley E. Manning (born December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was arrested in May 2010 in Iraq on suspicion of having passed restricted material to the website WikiLeaks. He was charged in July that year with transferring classified data onto his personal computer, and communicating national defense information to an unauthorized source. An additional 22 charges were preferred in March 2011, including "aiding the enemy," a capital offense, though prosecutors said they would not seek the death penalty. He currently awaits a hearing to decide whether he will face a court martial.[2]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning

So he's been locked up with no trial, only charges, for a full year (almost).

Not to mention that very shabby conditions he's being held in, which to me seem obviously punitive, which is illegal.
>> ^Morganth:

He does though. They can't just give you a trail date immediately when you're arrested. His trail date is within the next two months.>> ^gwiz665:
But here's the kicker - Manning hasn't been tried for anything. Not found guilty of anything. He has just been imprisoned.
In a society of law, this can't be right.
>> ^SDGundamX:
I think there are two separate issues here: breaking the law and morally doing the right thing. They're not always the same. Obama's answer shouldn't be shocking to anyone because from the government's standpoint Manning did indeed break the law. So did Daniel Ellsberg. The only reason Ellsberg wasn't convicted in fact was because of the gross misconduct of the government during the prosecution of his case, which resulted in a mistrial. But Ellsberg freely admits to knowing he was breaking the law and expecting to go to prison--he did it because he felt it was the right thing to do.
If someone with access to classified or top secret information mentions--even in a casual conversation--anything about the materials they have access to, they know they are going to go to be arrested and tried. That's what the law says. The law has said that since the Espionage Act of 1917. If people disagree with it, they need to lobby to have the law either amended or repealed. To be fair though, the law has been used successfully many times to prosecute actual spies and others who tried to make a profit by selling classified materials. I think given the circumstances, though, the law needs to be updated somehow to account for whistle-blowers.

>> ^Morganth:

This was supposed to be a fund-raiser. Then someone jumps him with an unexpected question and everyone whips out their camera phones to put this on the internet. If you think Obama is being short and blunt, it's because he is and it's intentional. His every word will be scrutinized by CNN, FOX, MSNBC and plenty of foreign news agencies.
Imagine being invited to a party and while you're there someone pulls out a camera to ask you your position on controversial issue x. You have no prep time and what you say can't be taken back because it's going to be available for the world to see within minutes.
As for Manning, he's not being held indefinitely and he's not in some secret holding cell. He's in Kansas. And his pre-trail hearing is in May. For those of you who think he's some sort of reincarnated Rosa Parks, here are his own words, "If you had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months, what would you do?" or how about, "listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga’s Telephone while exfiltratrating possibly the largest data spillage in american history...i could’ve sold to russia or china, and made bank?"
He did it simply because he was bored, he could, and he hated his crappy job with the Army sitting in front of a computer all day in the middle of a freaking desert. He ended up getting caught because he bragged about it wanting hacker fame.
Assange hasn't broken any US law. Manning's lucky that the prosecution isn't seeking the death penalty, which 'Aiding the Enemy' (one of the 23 charges against him) carries.


Well...he was a constitutional law professor. You'd think he'd know a little something about the presumption of innocence.

He is the president its a pritty simple question you dont need prep time thats the whole issue with polatics is that polatitoins can just say smarmy bullshit and get away with it. noone has a clue as to what or who abama is or what he realy wants to do .

>> ^Morganth:

This was supposed to be a fund-raiser. Then someone jumps him with an unexpected question and everyone whips out their camera phones to put this on the internet. If you think Obama is being short and blunt, it's because he is and it's intentional. His every word will be scrutinized by CNN, FOX, MSNBC and plenty of foreign news agencies.
Imagine being invited to a party and while you're there someone pulls out a camera to ask you your position on controversial issue x. You have no prep time and what you say can't be taken back because it's going to be available for the world to see within minutes.
As for Manning, he's not being held indefinitely and he's not in some secret holding cell. He's in Kansas. And his pre-trail hearing is in May. For those of you who think he's some sort of reincarnated Rosa Parks, here are his own words, "If you had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months, what would you do?" or how about, "listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga’s Telephone while exfiltratrating possibly the largest data spillage in american history...i could’ve sold to russia or china, and made bank?"
He did it simply because he was bored, he could, and he hated his crappy job with the Army sitting in front of a computer all day in the middle of a freaking desert. He ended up getting caught because he bragged about it wanting hacker fame.
Assange hasn't broken any US law. Manning's lucky that the prosecution isn't seeking the death penalty, which 'Aiding the Enemy' (one of the 23 charges against him) carries.

This was supposed to be a fund-raiser. Then someone jumps him with an unexpected question and everyone whips out their camera phones to put this on the internet. If you think Obama is being short and blunt, it's because he is and it's intentional. His every word will be scrutinized by CNN, FOX, MSNBC and plenty of foreign news agencies.

Imagine being invited to a party and while you're there someone pulls out a camera to ask you your position on controversial issue x. You have no prep time and what you say can't be taken back because it's going to be available for the world to see within minutes.

As for Manning, he's not being held indefinitely and he's not in some secret holding cell. He's in Kansas. And his pre-trail hearing is in May. For those of you who think he's some sort of reincarnated Rosa Parks, here are his own words, "If you had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months, what would you do?" or how about, "listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga’s Telephone while exfiltratrating possibly the largest data spillage in american history...i could’ve sold to russia or china, and made bank?"

He did it simply because he was bored, he could, and he hated his crappy job with the Army sitting in front of a computer all day in the middle of a freaking desert. He ended up getting caught because he bragged about it wanting hacker fame.

Assange hasn't broken any US law. Manning's lucky that the prosecution isn't seeking the death penalty, which 'Aiding the Enemy' (one of the 23 charges against him) carries.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

MG, I removed the URL from your post here- as that's aiding the enemy. Remember, "Loose Links, Spam Stinks" or something like that.

I agree that dehumanization is also a psychological defense, by dehumanizing you eliminate the enemy as being inherently human, its easier to kill then because you aren't killing human beings. Its a form of cognitive dissonance, that can be backed up by any number of reasons.

This can be seen in paintings, consider the Shootings of May 3rd by Goya, the killers have their backs to us, they are alien while those being shot at closer to us. We emphasize with those about to get killed through the emotions that play over each one. In other mediums like cinema we see it when an army is being assailed by a faceless nameless enemy, we are drawn to those whose plight we see, their attackers are distant, inhumane, this is done in alot of action films and especially in World War 2 movies. Our responses are being shaped in subtle ways.

Other forms of psychological lockdown also exist for example in Guantanamo Bay, troops there were trained to greet and acknowledge each other by the saying "Honor bound to defend freedom" . This is a psychological device to remind the troops of their mission and why there are there, its coercive because it eliminates internal criticism, the same could be seen in the armed forces post 9/11 where those events created the necessary ethical argument to committing evil acts in themselves. To against that flow was hard. Criticism was seen as lacking patriotism or worse aiding the enemy.

My statement that we must commit great evil to end evil is simply a realistic observation of man's involvement in war. Its the rationale that we create, this was the rational used in the Vietnam war, Gulf war, Serbia and other conflict. As if one nations atrocities are somehow better then anthers, but this is the view that most Americans are programmed to have. That Americans do no evil, that somehow their involvement is clean, just and required for the "survival of civilization as we know it against fundamentalist Islamic terrorism". Pretty words to simply justify a never ending war.

For me the issue is presented simply by the following quote - "Robert McNamara: I think the human race needs to think about killing. How much evil must we do in order to do good."

There is a speech by Chris Hedges talking about War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning - http://www.videosift.com/video/War-is-a-Force-that-Gives-us-Meaning-by-Chris-Hedges-1H

I recommend reading Chris Hedges - "War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning" and "Dispatches" by Micheal Herr.