Bradley Manning Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

[jimnyc]

Who do they let make these submissions, anyone? This guy is perhaps a traitor to his country and placed many lives in danger - so he should be nominated for the Peace Prize? I know he won't win it, but they shouldn't even accept such submissions, IMO. And whoever submits idiots like this an Assange, well they should have their "nomination rights" revoked, again simply my opinion.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bradley-manning-nominated-nobel-peace-prize_631996.html

[Noir]

I wouldn't say someone like Assange has brought about peace etc, but he is certainly no idiot, and has brought to the surface levels of corruption and such that need be known. Just because a lot of the corruption involves your government (and mine)

Assange is viewed in a most negative light, no doubt if had been born in the middle east and spent his life bringing to light corruption in Iran and so forth you wouldn't think him such an idiot.

[jimnyc]

I wouldn't say someone like Assange has brought about peace etc, but he is certainly no idiot, and has brought to the surface levels of corruption and such that need be known. Just because a lot of the corruption involves your government (and mine)

Assange is viewed in a most negative light, no doubt if had been born in the middle east and spent his life bringing to light corruption in Iran and so forth you wouldn't think him such an idiot.

One can have a genius level IQ, and become an idiot by their actions, which is what I feel like Assange did. Neither of these 2 have done ANYTHING even REMOTELY close to being worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Only Manning will serve the time for a crime that Assange took advantage of. Nominating either for this prize is worse than Obama, and is laughable.

[Noir]

One can have a genius level IQ, and become an idiot by their actions, which is what I feel like Assange did. Neither of these 2 have done ANYTHING even REMOTELY close to being worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Only Manning will serve the time for a crime that Assange took advantage of. Nominating either for this prize is worse than Obama, and is laughable.

Like i said, i don't think a NPP is the right award or anything, but wikileaks have done *so much* good, much of which i'm sure isn't reported on your news, for example the following two stories...



- The Independent: Toxic Shame: Thousands injured in African city, 17 Sep 2009 - Publication of an article originally published in UK newspaper The Independent, but censored from the Independent's website. WikiLeaks has saved dozens of articles, radio and tv recordings from disappearing after having been censored from BBC, Guardian, and other major news organisations archives.
- Secret gag on UK Times preventing publication of Minton report into toxic waste dumping, 16 Sep 2009 - Publication of variations of a so-called super-injunction, one of many gag-orders published by WikiLeaks to expose successful attempts to suppress the free press via repressive legal attacks
There are dozens of similar stories, wikileaks acted outside of gags, injunctions and super-injunctions, all manor of free-speech repressing tools.

[jimnyc]

Some good may have come out of it, in regards to corruption, but how many lives would the information be worth? I don't think playing "russian roulette" is worth it. If they REALLY wanted to, they could have handled things differently and outed the corruption and what not. But releasing information that dealt with national security issues or other strictly confidential information, was far from necessary. They just dumped everything without regard for what it all actually meant and without a worry that it was putting certain lives at risk.

[Noir]

Some good may have come out of it, in regards to corruption, but how many lives would the information be worth? I don't think playing "russian roulette" is worth it. If they REALLY wanted to, they could have handled things differently and outed the corruption and what not. But releasing information that dealt with national security issues or other strictly confidential information, was far from necessary. They just dumped everything without regard for what it all actually meant and without a worry that it was putting certain lives at risk.

Silly argument is silly, and its that exactly argument that is used to suppress free speech *all* the time. Infact the very basis of political correctness is the management and suppression of speech incase someone is offended/hurt/killed.

We *need* orgs like wiki leaks who are not scared to act against super-injuntions and they like.

[logroller]

One can have a genius level IQ, and become an idiot by their actions, which is what I feel like Assange did. Neither of these 2 have done ANYTHING even REMOTELY close to being worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Only Manning will serve the time for a crime that Assange took advantage of. Nominating either for this prize is worse than Obama, and is laughable.
Certainly placing american lives at risk is criminal...but what standard are we are to apply? Our founding father's broke the law too; insurrection and treason no less, which I think is a more heinous crime than leaking classified docs. Had they been brought to trial they would have assuredly been put to death... were they idiots too? I don't think so, but only time will tell.

[jimnyc]

Silly argument is silly, and its that exactly argument that is used to suppress free speech *all* the time. Infact the very basis of political correctness is the management and suppression of speech incase someone is offended/hurt/killed.

We *need* orgs like wiki leaks who are not scared to act against super-injuntions and they like.

There's a HUGE difference between opening the doors and exposing corruption and other shit for what it is, or just unleashing everything you have, and placing many lives at risk while hurting national security. Hey, if you guys think that it's worth people dying for, that's great, but line up volunteers instead of placing those in the line of fire that didn't do anything.

[jimnyc]

Certainly placing american lives at risk is criminal...but what standard are we are to apply? Our founding father's broke the law too; insurrection and treason no less, which I think is a more heinous crime than leaking classified docs. Had they been brought to trial they would have assuredly been put to death... were they idiots too? I don't think so, but only time will tell.

Well, this isn't then, this is now. And I would apply the same standards to both time periods - you shouldn't become a traitor to your own country and place innocent lives at risk in the process, as well as national security. The perpetrators should be held accountable for their actions and prosecuted based on the laws currently on the books. I think it's not a good analogy though as it's basically 2 different worlds. But a crime is a crime, and no matter how noble, is not worth an innocent persons life.

[logroller]

There's a HUGE difference between opening the doors and exposing corruption and other shit for what it is, or just unleashing everything you have, and placing many lives at risk while hurting national security. Hey, if you guys think that it's worth people dying for, that's great, but line up volunteers instead of placing those in the line of fire that didn't do anything.
Sounds like a good closing line when/if you get a chance to address Congress. :thumb:

[Noir]

Well, this isn't then, this is now. And I would apply the same standards to both time periods - you shouldn't become a traitor to your own country and place innocent lives at risk in the process, as well as national security. The perpetrators should be held accountable for their actions and prosecuted based on the laws currently on the books. I think it's not a good analogy though as it's basically 2 different worlds. But a crime is a crime, and no matter how noble, is not worth an innocent persons life.

This philosophy would sit well within any Dictatorship.

Not to mention terrorism, a good example of which would be the Muslims who love to riot whenever muhammed (MBUH) is depicted in any way, causing harm and death. Should the drawers of the cartoon be considered to be putting innocent lives at risk?

[revelarts]

One Nobel Peace Prize winner putting a Nobel peace prize nominee on trial.
that's gotta be a 1st.

the nominee is a good American, He was only exposing, if it was him, things that at Mr Barack-Transparency- Obama said he was going expose once he got to office. What's the beef?

And the guys already served almost 2 years now WITHOUT a Trial.
THOSE STINKING DEMOCRATS trying to hide their dirty work from the people!!!!!

[jimnyc]

This philosophy would sit well within any Dictatorship.

Not to mention terrorism, a good example of which would be the Muslims who love to riot whenever muhammed (MBUH) is depicted in any way, causing harm and death. Should the drawers of the cartoon be considered to be putting innocent lives at risk?

Seriously? You're going to compare a man who drew a cartoon with others who released 250,000 confidential documents? One was some seriously bad satire and the other is treason. I can see how you find them similar!

[logroller]

Well, this isn't then, this is now. And I would apply the same standards to both time periods - you shouldn't become a traitor to your own country and place innocent lives at risk in the process, as well as national security. The perpetrators should be held accountable for their actions and prosecuted based on the laws currently on the books. I think it's not a good analogy though as it's basically 2 different worlds. But a crime is a crime, and no matter how noble, is not worth an innocent persons life.
Nor should my country betray the trust they have been granted. There's got to be a balance. What's different between now and then is-- then it was a government despotism, now it is a government of oligarchy, or "rule of the few". there are few in power who think they know what is best, a quasi-aristocracy really...and maybe they're right and they know what is best. But if they are, then their reasoning should stand a bit of scrutiny now and then. Truth is, the nation-state is on perilous ground nowadays. Where we once, out of necessity, had to entrust those in power with a great deal autonomy due to the snails pace of information-- we are no longer bound to the same degree as we were even half a century ago. Things like wikileaks are new, and with new things come new challenges. I've little doubt the man is guilty of his crimes; but I must consider the relevance of this crime in the context of how we are to check our government's activities. I realize some activities must, out of necessity, be clandestine at times, but not to the extent of what wikileaks exposed.

[jimnyc]

Nor should my country betray the trust they have been granted. There's got to be a balance. What's different between now and then is-- then it was a government despotism, now it is a government of oligarchy, or "rule of the few". there are few in power who think they know what is best, a quasi-aristocracy really...and maybe they're right and they know what is best. But if they are, then their reasoning should stand a bit of scrutiny now and then. Truth is, the nation-state is on perilous ground nowadays. Where we once, out of necessity, had to entrust those in power with a great deal autonomy due to the snails pace of information-- we are no longer bound to the same degree as we were even half a century ago. Things like wikileaks are new, and with new things come new challenges. I've little doubt the man is guilty of his crimes; but I must consider the relevance of this crime in the context of how we are to check our government's activities. I realize some activities must, out of necessity, be clandestine at times, but not to the extent of what wikileaks exposed.

If there was a way to put something in line, something that would help prevent corruption and allowing Washington to screw us - line me up and I'll be the first to sign on the dotted line. I just don't think exposing materials that put lives at risk, and don't expose corruption, is a good idea. They could have exposed just about every last bit of corruption in the 250,000 pages and hurt all the "bad do-ers" in there, all without putting those lives at risk. They didn't take that opportunity, they just dropped everything and let the world decide, lives be damned.

[logroller]

If there was a way to put something in line, something that would help prevent corruption and allowing Washington to screw us - line me up and I'll be the first to sign on the dotted line. I just don't think exposing materials that put lives at risk, and don't expose corruption, is a good idea. They could have exposed just about every last bit of corruption in the 250,000 pages and hurt all the "bad do-ers" in there, all without putting those lives at risk. They didn't take that opportunity, they just dropped everything and let the world decide, lives be damned.

man i hear ya; a perfect solution would be nice-- unfortunately every decision has some downstream consequences which aren't preferable. dude probably thought he was doing what was best; OK, good for his conscience-- but he'll go to jail just the same. Like I said, only time will tell.

[jimnyc]

This would be awesome if it turns out to be true, and even more so if he gets convicted. And I say this based on the irresponsible way he placed lives at risk, not because he tried to expose corruption. IMO, he's not playing a "good guy", but rather an opportunist, and couldn't care less about 98% of the stuff he is exposing.


Revealed: US plans to charge AssangeUNITED STATES prosecutors have drawn up secret charges against the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, according to a confidential email obtained from the private US intelligence company Stratfor.

In an internal email to Stratfor analysts on January 26 last year, the vice-president of intelligence, Fred Burton, responded to a media report concerning US investigations targeting WikiLeaks with the comment: ''We have a sealed indictment on Assange.''

He underlined the sensitivity of the information - apparently obtained from a US government source - with warnings to ''Pls [please] protect'' and ''Not for pub[lication]''.

Mr Burton is well known as an expert on security and counterterrorism with close ties to the US intelligence and law enforcement agencies. He is the former deputy chief of the counter-terrorism division of the US State Department's diplomatic security service.

Stratfor, whose headquarters are in Austin, Texas, provides intelligence and analysis to corporate and government subscribers.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/revealed-us-plans-to-charge-assange-20120228-1u14o.html

[fj1200]

This would be awesome if it turns out to be true, and even more so if he gets convicted. And I say this based on the irresponsible way he placed lives at risk, not because he tried to expose corruption. IMO, he's not playing a "good guy", but rather an opportunist, and couldn't care less about 98% of the stuff he is exposing.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/revealed-us-plans-to-charge-assange-20120228-1u14o.html

Did I miss what his actual alleged crime was?

[jimnyc]

Did I miss what his actual alleged crime was?

In the article it states possibly espionage or conspiracy. But it also talks of a "sealed indictment", so you won't get many details out of it unless it goes forth I suppose.

[fj1200]

In the article it states possibly espionage or conspiracy. But it also talks of a "sealed indictment", so you won't get many details out of it unless it goes forth I suppose.

I guess I saw that but even then wouldn't he need to be a citizen or at least in the US for him to be under our jurisdiction?

[jimnyc]

I guess I saw that but even then wouldn't he need to be a citizen or at least in the US for him to be under our jurisdiction?

You can still commit a crime against a country without being there or being a citizen. Now, having another country willing to extradite him is a different story.