WikiLeaks’ Manning To Be Honored At San Francisco Pride Parade

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,010
Criminal Mexi Midget
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS/AP) — An imprisoned U.S. Army private charged in a massive leak of U.S. secrets to the WikiLeaks website will serve as an honorary grand marshal in this year’s San Francisco Pride parade.
Parade organizer Gary Virginia said Friday that Chelsea Manning — formerly known as Bradley Manning — was chosen to make amends for a controversy last year. Manning was named an honorary grand marshal ahead of the 2013 parade, but had the honor revoked.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/04/12/wikileaks-chelsea-manning-grand-marshal-pride-parade/

everyone wants "transparency" until we actually get it, then everyone would have done it "differently".

can't have "transparency" w/o the rest of the world seeing it. your forefathers were branded "traitors" when things started


anyways, what do you think?
 

Technarchy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2012
6,747
4,885
Manning and Snowden are very different animals.

If asked I doubt anyone can even say what manning leaked and what value it was to the greater public.

Personally, I regard him as a traitor that exploited his access and clearance.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Manning and Snowden are very different animals.

If asked I doubt anyone can even say what manning leaked and what value it was to the greater public.

Personally, I regard him as a traitor that exploited his access and clearance.
Personally, I'm torn, as I can see both sides of their situations.

The question really is, how does the Constitution see them?

From Article 3, Section 3:

United States Constitution said:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
It all boils down to taking each clause as its literal condition for treason. Did both Manning and Snowden give aid or comfort to our enemies? I would say yes and no, because what they did provided info to everyone, including our enemies, as well as the general public. Did they adhere to them? Again, I would say no, as it would have been defined who those enemies are.

Compare that to the last person to be tried for treason, which would be John Walker Lindh, as for him both answers would be yes.

What they did was wrong, especially with the bounds of process and due process. Was their reasoning a right or just cause? yes. So there are a bunch of conflicts there as to ultimately what they would be deemed.

So they face charges on what they did and how they did it, but not treason or a traitor.

BL.
 

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
I regard both of them as traitors. Manning at least had the courage to face his trial (or her trial) and is serving his/her punishment. Snowden is not only a traitor but a coward.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
I regard both of them as traitors. Manning at least had the courage to face his trial (or her trial) and is serving his/her punishment. Snowden is not only a traitor but a coward.
It's courageous to stay and basically get tortured, yes, but it isn't exactly cowardly to not want that sort of treatment.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,989
Manning and Snowden are very different animals.

If asked I doubt anyone can even say what manning leaked and what value it was to the greater public.

Personally, I regard him as a traitor that exploited his access and clearance.
What enemy did Chelsea aid? The public?:roll eyes:

I take it you would have tried Ellsberg for treason as well right?
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
What enemy did Chelsea aid? The public?:roll eyes:

I take it you would have tried Ellsberg for treason as well right?
But... but ... he showed that the US has done war crimes (that we aren't being charged on). Imagine if the terrorists knew that, they could ... errr.... I don't know.

But something bad, I know that!

'Murica!

>_>

I am in full sarcasm mode today for some reason.
 

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
It's courageous to stay and basically get tortured, yes, but it isn't exactly cowardly to not want that sort of treatment.
If he truly believed what he did was right, he should have no problem facing a jury of his peers in an attempt to convince them. Instead he has chosen to flee and live amongst our enemies. He is a coward, plain and simple.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,010
Criminal Mexi Midget
If he truly believed what he did was right, he should have no problem facing a jury of his peers in an attempt to convince them. Instead he has chosen to flee and live amongst our enemies. He is a coward, plain and simple.
you assume he would make it to trial, rather easy to fabricate "evidence" to discredit the man if he stayed .
P-A & the NDAA make it so you can be held w/o a trial. NDAA was over turned IIRC.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
If he truly believed what he did was right, he should have no problem facing a jury of his peers in an attempt to convince them. Instead he has chosen to flee and live amongst our enemies. He is a coward, plain and simple.
It took Bradley Manning a year to get to trial.

Also, what enemy? He went to Russia, our ally. He also went to Hong Kong, another of our allies.
 

Renzatic

Suspended
If he truly believed what he did was right, he should have no problem facing a jury of his peers in an attempt to convince them. Instead he has chosen to flee and live amongst our enemies. He is a coward, plain and simple.
Manning, I've always had a conflicting opinion of. But Snowden a traitor, guilty of treason? He exposed a conspiracy against the American people by going straight to the press. He gave no aid or succor to the enemy, gave them no information they could directly use against us, and we weren't weakened by his actions. Instead, he did exactly what yee olde Founding Fathers intended us to do when our government steps over the line. He gave us the information, and enabled us to voice our opinion over something that isn't necessarily in our best interests.

The guy deserves a medal.
 

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
Snowden is a coward who does not have the nerve to face up to the people for what he has done. He will hide overseas for the rest of his miserable life. If he truly believed in what he did, he would have no problem defending it before a jury. He'd not only not fear it but he would be welcoming it and insisting upon it.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
Snowden is a coward who does not have the nerve to face up to the people for what he has done. He will hide overseas for the rest of his miserable life. If he truly believed in what he did, he would have no problem defending it before a jury. He'd not only not fear it but he would be welcoming it and insisting upon it.
Not in these days, when the prosecutors are legally allowed to have not share what they have. Only an idiot would have stayed. Heck, Manning had to wait a year (and deal with a lot of crap he shouldn't have, even if you think he should have been arrested at all in the first place). No, he did the smart thing.

Only an idiot would think this is anything to rush back for. He'd disappear for over a year before he had a trial, and he'd definitely not be in good health when he finally got to the courtroom.

So, yes, he likely truly believes in what he did. But he's no idiot, he knows what happens these days to people who give up Government secrets.
 

skottichan

macrumors 6502a
Oct 23, 2007
879
901
Columbus, OH
Sigh, can we at least get Ms Manning's pronoun right? Chelsea Manning is a woman, whether or not you agree with what she did in regards to her position and what was leaked, can we at least respect her as a human being?

Chelsea Manning and Kristen Beck are brave women who served as well as had to have their transitions in the public eye. I think SF Pride should honor both of them.
 

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Oct 27, 2009
7,433
8,606
If he truly believed what he did was right, he should have no problem facing a jury of his peers in an attempt to convince them. Instead he has chosen to flee and live amongst our enemies. He is a coward, plain and simple.
Totally agree!!!!
 

zioxide

macrumors 603
Dec 11, 2006
5,725
3,711
Snowden is a coward who does not have the nerve to face up to the people for what he has done. He will hide overseas for the rest of his miserable life. If he truly believed in what he did, he would have no problem defending it before a jury. He'd not only not fear it but he would be welcoming it and insisting upon it.
Why would he ever trust a system & government to give him a fair trial when that same government that egregiously violated the 4th amendment to it's own Constitution to illegally spy on it's own citizens?
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Why would he ever trust a system & government to give him a fair trial when that same government that egregiously violated the 4th amendment to it's own Constitution to illegally spy on it's own citizens?
That is a fair point. And even the most staunch conservatives here can agree with that, especially as both political parties have done this very exact thing since 2002.

BL.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,010
Criminal Mexi Midget
That is a fair point. And even the most staunch conservatives here can agree with that, especially as both political parties have done this very exact thing since 2002.

BL.
sad to say that in other forums, when Bush was in charge, the common post from "conservatives" was

*****if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about******
 

Technarchy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2012
6,747
4,885
What enemy did Chelsea aid? The public?:roll eyes:

I take it you would have tried Ellsberg for treason as well right?
Breaking OPSEC is aiding the enemy by default.

----------

sad to say that in other forums, when Bush was in charge, the common post from "conservatives" was

*****if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about******
I'd love to see these posts from so-called conservatives.
 

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
Sigh, can we at least get Ms Manning's pronoun right? Chelsea Manning is a woman, whether or not you agree with what she did in regards to her position and what was leaked, can we at least respect her as a human being?

Chelsea Manning and Kristen Beck are brave women who served as well as had to have their transitions in the public eye. I think SF Pride should honor both of them.
Sorry but Ms. Chelsea is technically a MAN. That would make the pronouns, HE or HIM or HIS correct. Sure he wants to be a she but he still has the plumbing.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
sad to say that in other forums, when Bush was in charge, the common post from "conservatives" was

*****if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about******
And that's my point. Their saying this is akin to making excuses to justify the action.. yet Manning and Snowden are called cowards and traitors for exposing the same thing?

Talk about serious double standards here. What was that old saying? What is good for the goose is good for the gander, or something similar?

Breaking OPSEC is aiding the enemy by default.
And again, who is this 'enemy'? If it is not defined, it is open-ended, in which anyone could qualify as 'the enemy'.

Elian Gonzalez' relatives in Miami helping him cross the Gulf from Cuba could be interpreted as 'aiding the enemy'.

Helping bin Laden in 1980 could be interpreted as 'aiding the enemy'.

Helping Pakistan as we have over the past 8 years, knowing full well they have been supporting the Taliban could be interpreted as 'aiding the enemy'.

Yet none of those involved with that, from Gonzalez' relatives, all the way up to 2 Presidents and a VP have been tried for treason.

Your argument is using too wide of a brush, and fails.

BL.
 
Last edited: