WikiLeaks strikes again -- U.S. diplomacy stripped naked

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
I don't care. The state does not have the right to kill people. It is as inexcusable as state sanctioned torture. Leave that for the bloody Saudi Arabians.
My arguments are directed primarily at those who support the use of the death penalty. I do not expect someone who is against the use of the death penalty to support my position.
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
No problem. However, I think it's a funny thing to preech to the converted. I can write whole essays to explain how Israel's occupation of the West Bank is wrong, legally and morally. But what's the point if I'm just trying to reach people who's already on board with that? It's bloody easy to get the Norwegian Palestine-lobby to agree it's wrong. Now, getting someone from the extreme right in the Progress Party (Fremskrittspartiet, Norway's most right wing party, the second largest in the parliament), to agree, that's a challenge. And I've done it. Several times. And I've failed. Several times.

But that's the challenge, that's how you turn opinons.

Not that my opinion of capital punishment will ever be turned. It's morally wrong, and has the added problem of being a completely stupid way of punishing people when the people punished are convicted in a justice system where loads of people are convicted, despite being innocent. The last decade of American death row convicts being proven innocent should really make proponents of capital punishment think again.

You know it's happening, you know it's impossible to avoid as long as the justice system can never be perfect, and you silently accept it. If there's one question I'd like to ask you, jetsetter, it's this. Why do you accept it?
 

Cobol74

Forum Addict
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
17,507
Location
The banana republic of Ukania
Car(s)
Honda Accord 2.2 i-Dtec Sport Estate.Hyundai Ix20
To sum up - it is wrong for Norway and Ukania, but it is correct for the US - at the moment. We may change, or they may change there will be signals to tell the powers that be when to do it.
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
19,144
Location
Michigan USA
My arguments are directed primarily at those who support the use of the death penalty. I do not expect someone who is against the use of the death penalty to support my position.


Why do you feel a need to preach to the choir? The facts are that a small percentage of the people put to death in the last 50 years were later proven innocent. If only one was to be proven innocent after, it would still justify the end of the death penalty in the USA.
 

tigger

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
5,737
Car(s)
'88 Vic Wagon, '92 Honda VFR
You can never be sure enough, humans make mistakes and as it is, I do not trust the government to kill people. You can't have a perfect justice system, so you can't have capital punishment. How proponents of capital punishment can take it on themselves to defend a system that has to kill innocent people as by design, I'll never understand.
You can even consider it as a purely pragmatic, economic question outside of morality and reach the same sentiment. The death penalty is not a deterrent to crime and it is stupendously expensive in the US. Endless appeals, varying courts, justices, lawyers, etc, make it so. It is much, much cheaper to simply lock someone away for life. The same goal is accomplished: they cease to be free. And, if you have any notion of morality at all, they can be freed (and an attempt at compensation made) if later found innocent.

Ideally executions would be public.
Are you fucking joking? Have you ever seen someone die? I'll skip a personal attack and just say that nothing would damage the death penalty in the US more than public executions. An 80 year old example from Kentucky is nowhere near illustrative of how the US would react to a public execution nowadays. You want to shoot your cause in the foot? That's the prime way to do it.

To sum up - it is wrong for Norway and Ukania, but it is correct for the US - at the moment. We may change, or they may change there will be signals to tell the powers that be when to do it.
Eh, something like 35 out of 50 states apply the death penalty and ~64% of Americans support it (Gallup 10/10). That's down from 80% support 20 years ago. And we used to have a moratorium on executions (when we realized we were killing so many innocents). In sum I'd hardly say it's unanimous here, not that you were saying as much. I just wanted to post some stats. :p
 

IceBone

Blue Wheel Hipster
DONOR
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
27,168
Location
Slovenistan
Car(s)
Audi A5 Quattro
Maybe that's been his agenda all along and he's really a diehard liberal with a heart of gold.

:lmao:
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
To sum up - it is wrong for Norway and Ukania, but it is correct for the US - at the moment. We may change, or they may change there will be signals to tell the powers that be when to do it.
To sum up, it's just plain wrong. Capital punishment has support in the US. A lot American's support Defense of Marriage Act as well, even if it's only legislative gay bashing, government intrusion into the lives of people. Let's think about it, people put their own values before the happiness of other people, because they find gay marriage imoral, and think the government shouldn't condone it. But if you think about it, if you're married to a woman, you're still married to a woman if two men get married.

Gay marriage is a victimless thing. And it's still something many American's opose.

It doesn't mean it's right for America. It just means it has support.

You can even consider it as a purely pragmatic, economic question outside of morality and reach the same sentiment. The death penalty is not a deterrent to crime and it is stupendously expensive in the US. Endless appeals, varying courts, justices, lawyers, etc, make it so. It is much, much cheaper to simply lock someone away for life. The same goal is accomplished: they cease to be free. And, if you have any notion of morality at all, they can be freed (and an attempt at compensation made) if later found innocent.
Indeed.

That doesn't make any sense. Killing people is either wrong or it isn't.
It's all a question of context. I'm a pragmatist. If someone is putting anyone in danger, they can be killed.

But that's an act of defense. Killing someone a couple of years later isn't.
 

Okaen

Active Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2010
Messages
358
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Car(s)
1995 Honda Accord
Illinois has decided that the death penalty will no longer be legal in that state. The fact that they did a lot of research and decided it was better to abolish it.We'll see how this affects other states.
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
It's the obvious fiscal policy in this fiscal climate. Not to mention it will lead to less innocent people being killed by mistake.
 

tigger

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
5,737
Car(s)
'88 Vic Wagon, '92 Honda VFR
I read a couple articles earlier today on the new 'leaks'. Meet the new administration, same as the old administration.
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
I do have some issues with Wikileaks. But that ad was brilliant. And I still think Mastercard and Paypal acted like dicks.
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
19,144
Location
Michigan USA
Bradley Manning, the Person: The Making of the World's Most Notorious Leaker

"hi," he said. "how are you?"

That's how it all started. WikiLeaks' elevation to international geopolitical phenomenon. The State Department's embarrassment. Bradley Manning's detention. Adrian Lamo's public shaming by the hacker community. Julian Assange's assumption of the role of global supervillain. The reevaluation of what journalism is or should be in the age of Big Data.

That greeting was the first thing that supposed WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning said to Adrian Lamo, who turned him in. Manning goes on to confess in quite specific terms what he'd done, which was to exfiltrate hundreds of thousands of documents from an intelligence system known as SIPRNET on rewriteable CDs and send to Julian Assange, who he calls a "crazy white haired aussie who can't seem to stay in one country very long."

There are a lot of interesting tidbits in the logs from supposed details about a 45 million-strong botnet to the hidden network of queer activists within the military to new details on how Lamo gained Manning's trust. I'm sure other sites will pull out those details.

What I want to focus on is Bradley Manning the person. Throughout the chats, he refers to himself as a "ghost" or "ghostly" multiple times, and in the WikiLeaks affair, he's been precisely that. While Assange, Lamo, and a host of other figures have gotten top billing, Manning's been held in military detention under rough conditions that even former State Department spokesman PJ Crowley called "counterproductive" and "stupid."

He was the conscience that sparked these international controversies. He was the human being who felt he had to speak out. And he was a very confused young man in an incredible amount of psychological pain. I want to flesh him out, to unghost him a little for you. If we, as a country, are going to imprison Manning for what he's done, we owe it to him to understand him. If we, as a country, are going to hold him in conditions that the United Nations wants to investigate, we owe it to him to try to figure out why he did what he did.

The chat logs make for psychologically grueling reading. One because Manning is obviously hurting and *we know things turn out for him* but two, the argot of internet chat makes the whole thing feel breezy and disjointed. So, I'm laying out Bradley Manning's story here, using his own words wherever possible, in a format that's easier to follow and digest.

Bradley Manning was born in central Oklahoma and grew up in Crescent, north of Oklahoma City. Manning saw it as a "highly evangelical" town, though self-reported stats don't show it to be particularly religious. His father was a programmer with Hertz, so there were a lot of gadgets around to play with. Manning was, by his own estimation short, "very effeminate" and "very intelligent," and all three traits were obvious from a young age. He "could read at 3 and multiply / divide by 4." He loved computers and was "glued to a computer screen" as a kid, "obsessively" playing the original SimCity.

By kindergarten, he'd already become a target for harassment both at school and at home. Kids called him a girly boy or a teacher's pet. His father was an alcoholic and abusive, Manning tells Lamo. Manning the boy retreated into learning things. "My favorite things growing up were reading my encyclopaedia, watching PBS (the only channel i could get on my TV) building with lego, and playing on my dad's hand-me-down computers." He participated in science fairs, but also figured that if he became an athlete, he might get picked on less. He joined sports teams.

In middle school, his parents got divorced after a particularly ugly incident.


"my father in a drunken stupor got angry with me because i was doing some noisy homework while he was watching TV... he went into his bedroom, pulled out a shotgun, and chased me out of the house... the door was deadbolted, so i couldn't get out before he caught up with me... so my mother (also wasted) threw a lamp over his head... and i proceeded to fight him, breaking his nose, and made it out of the house... my father let off one or two shots, causing damage, but injuring nobody, except for the belt lashing i got for "making him shoot up the house"

His teachers noticed his wounds and "social workers got involved." His mother filed for divorce and attempted suicide. After she got better, she got custody of Manning and went home to her hometown in Wales in the UK. School became less of a priority and Manning tried to get a startup going, "AngelDyne.com - Pembrokeshire's finest online network." It didn't really work out. At that point, his mother started having strokes and Manning managed to get back to the States after accidentally stumbling through the July 7 bombings in London.

During this period, Manning had come to grips with the fact that he was gay. "Sexual orientation was easy to figure out." He joined the Army in October 2007 anyway, despite the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy then in effect. It appears he found some support among other people in the armed forces who supported the repeal of that (odious) policy.

Still, it was an isolated life, particularly after he got shipped off to Baghdad in late 2009. The desert was terrible.

"here, its hot, dry... and fucking hot. [double emphasis on hot] its also rather dusty. i'd prefer the heat over the peanut butter that forms when it rains. i grow 3 inches in height when it rains here," he wrote. "its a desert, but the ground is slightly fertile here... its a fine silt that forms clay. 'fertile crescent.' vegetation is sparse... an odd mixture of deciduous and tropical trees and shrubs. and usually keeled over slightly, from wind erosion."

He took the whole experience in but it didn't help.

Manning had lost his "emotional support channels" and was stuck "with a bunch of hyper-masculine trigger happy ignorant rednecks as neighbors." That was particularly bad because Manning was struggling with another revelation about himself: he was transsexual. As he told Lamo, "the only safe place i seem to have is this satellite internet connection."

It's here that Manning's personal drama began to intersect with the world's. He'd "loved" his job at times, despite it all, but one day he saw this happen:


was watching 15 detainees taken by the Iraqi Federal Police... for printing "anti-Iraqi literature"... the iraqi federal police wouldn't cooperate with US forces, so i was instructed to investigate the matter, find out who the "bad guys" were, and how significant this was for the FPs... it turned out, they had printed a scholarly critique against PM Maliki... i had an interpreter read it for me... and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled "Where did the money go?" and following the corruption trail within the PM's cabinet... i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on... he didn't want to hear any of it... he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees...everything started slipping after that... i saw things differently. i had always questioned the things worked, and investigated to find the truth... but that was a point where i was a *part* of something... i was actively involved in something that i was completely against...
Manning's conscience started to turn against the war in which he was involved. Suddenly, the network he was sitting on became a possible tool to do good for the world. "if you had free reign over classified networks for long periods of time... say, 8-9 months... and you saw incredible things, awful things... things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC... what would you do?"

We think we know what Manning did. And we think we know he acted out of conscience based on the statement above and several other hints from the chat logs. He found the machinations of first world governments "exploiting" third world ones to be disgusting, and he really wanted to change how the world worked. He hoped "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms" would result from the release of the documents he passed on.

Now, here's the big question: more than a million people had access to the documents Manning did. None of them decided to leak the documents. Sure, some of them couldn't have pulled it off technically (without getting caught). But clearly Manning's mind and conscience was also working in a different way from the rest of the people with access. If the Iraqi Federal Police incident was the trigger, he still had to be receptive. I think the newly released portions of the chat logs actually give us some insight into the making of Bradley Manning.

"i guess i could start electrolysis as soon im back in the states... even before im outprocessed," he wrote. "still gonna be weird watching the world change on the macro scale, while my life changes on the micro." Like most people, he couldn't help seeing his own life woven through the bigger story. His electrolysis was on the same scale as threatening the most powerful government in the world's concerns. That feels off, something like getting hungry on September 11, 2001, and yet people got hungry on September 11, 2001.

If I can be allowed a little psychological extrapolation, it's not hard to see Manning's private dilemma -- his feelings of being an outsider, of being powerless, of being weak -- letting him sympathize with the targets of powerful US organizations like the State Department and military. And the solution to his gender identity problem was the same as the one for geopolitics: everything had to come out. Secrets were corrosive at all levels.

In January of 2010, Manning was allegedly in the process of leaking the many, many documents to Julian Assange's organization. At the same time, he was also publicly cross-dressing for a substantial period of time while on leave.

"i went on leave in late january / early february... and... i cross-dressed, full on... wig, breastforms, dress, the works... i had crossdressed before... but i was public... for a few days," he wrote. "i blended in....no-one knew. the first thing i learned was that chivalry isn't dead... men would walk out of their way and open doors for me... it was so weird. i was referred to as "Ma'am" or "Miss" at places like Starbucks and McDonalds (hey, im not a fancy eater)."

Manning finally felt like himself, like he didn't have to hide anything. "i mean, i dont think its normal for people to spend this much time worrying about whether they're behaving masculine enough, whether what they're going to say is going to be perceived as 'gay'... not to mention how i feel about the situation..." he wrote. "for whatever reason, im not comfortable with myself... i mean, i behave and look like a male, but its not 'me'"

It's incredible to think that as Manning was allegedly passing off the biggest data leak in US government history, he was experimenting with a different kind of transparency and public display of previously secret information. He rode the Acela. He went into gas stations to buy cigarettes. He did normal things.

A few months later, after Lamo told military officials he knew about Manning, Manning was arrested and he's been held ever since. He's awaiting a trial to find out if he'll be courtmartialed.

The last thing he said in the chat logs was, "ive seen far more than a 22 y/o should."
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
If found guilty, he should be sentenced to a term of inprosinment for his federal crime.
 
Top