The page has a points sign in it, but you have google so you can probably find a page yourself.

Also, because some people don't know (or probably don't care), here is a link to a brief description of just a few of the things we've learned from Bradley Manning's leaks:

http://gregmitchellwriter.blogspot.com/2013/06/as-debate-continues-what-manning.html

Eligible for parole after 8 years, so all in all, I think he's probably relieved considering he was looking at a max of 90.

@ckroberts - I read your link and am still not surprised by any of it. Do people really think governments play nice? You die if you play nice in the Game of Thrones. I mean, come on guys learn something practical from Ned Stark

Nobody was surprised that Al Capone was killing rivals and hiding cash from the feds. Nobody thought that the Chinese were anything but authoritarian dictators when they drove tanks all over their own people. That doesn't mean you just shrug it off when proof is made public.

The thing is though - is this business as usual in the world, or is it just the US? We have limited information here. Do French ministers push Airbus as much as ours do Boeing? Did Ireland and Italy help hide the Vatican sex abuse case? Is French money in Mali or Chinese money in the DRC just as susceptible to bribery as US money is in Afghanistan? This provides a crucial snapshot at how the US operates, yes. But unless we know how other countries operate and put this information into that context, we can't presume to judge the US one way or another.

and a few days prior the death sentence.

That still doesn't make the sentence lenient, 2ndWhiteLine.

goldfinger0303: That's stupid. These leaks have shed tons of light on other countries.

Goldfinger, JECE accurately points out these leaks showed us a lot of dirty laundry about how the USA and other countries operate, but also: just because everyone does something wrong, that doesn't make it okay. And, referring also to your first statement about Game of Thrones, I don't think the USA should judge itself against monarchies, dictatorships, thug-run colonial wannabes, and the like. The nation was founded to be something better. Its leaders should act like it.

We haven't had a good leader (like the founders) since the two Roosevelts, ckroberts. Others have tried to mimic them and that's generally why they are failing.

Reagan and Clinton were good leaders but still not on that level.

Wait a sec, you call the Roosevelts and Clinton "good leaders"????

What's the matter with you?

Reagan I can agree with.

But what power do the american people have to change how their government operates? Or is this infact exactly how they want it to operate (where i assume a minority of people are opposed, but the majority buy goods from the corporations which lobby for American Imperialism/hegemony)

Other countries doing the same: "Pakistan...allows representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan"

Yep, because if you weaken the US in Afghanistan then they're less likely to be a threat to yourself, even if they are your ally.

It's like England passing info to Germany about his 'ally' France's moves... of course you do it, because you don't want France gaining too many SC in the area...

Pakistan would rather have more influence than the US in Afghanistan.

But the rules of the game are the problem, not the players who exploit them!

I'm pro-Snowden, but I really don't feel that bad for Manning. The reason? He just did a data dump of everything he could find and hoped something would stick. He didn't read all those documents; he had no idea what they may have contained; he had no idea the danger he may have been putting people in.

Manning was a traitor, the leaked documents put soldiers at risk, and he went way over the top releasing too much, too quickly.

The difference between him and Snowden is that Snowden carefully selected what he would and wouldn't release. Thats why I treat Snowden as a whistleblower and Manning as a traitor.

Fasces - can you give me a single example of someone who was put at risk from Manning's leaks?

abgemacht: Manning actually revealed huge amounts of previously unknown war crimes, human rights violations and unethical behavious. Snowden reminded us about something which we have known for over a decade. There's no comparison.

And Manning didn't just do a 'data dump'. He gave the documents to a news organization he trusted, who in turn shared part of the documents with mainstream news organizations we all trust. Snowden gave his documents straight to the mainstream news organizations we all trust, but he still has his own 'data dump' on his computer. I don't see a big difference there at all; the documents are still vulnerable, probably more so with Snowden than with WikiLeaks.

"He gave the documents to a news organization he trusted, who in turn shared part of the documents with mainstream news organizations we all trust."

This is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say.

Fasces349: Let me re-post messages I sent Draugnar in the last few weeks here: threadID=1035043.

"Why don't you produce specific a leak that you would regard as treasonous? You may have already in this thread, but I just joined the fun."

"Mr. Lemming, I ask you again to point to specific whistle-blowing leaks that you consider treasonous, that that put anybody in danger or that were otherwise harmful. You're just repeating the accusations like a parrot without considering whether the claimed consequences actually took place."

"For the third time, give me a leak that you feel was reckless, dangerous, treasonous or whatever you want to call it."

"
No, Draugnar, the odds are not in your favor. The prosecution never claimed that Manning's actions "had the potential to risk human life". In fact, the court forbade the defense from demonstrating otherwise. You can bet your ass that if there was anything in those 700,000 documents that risked human life that the government would have added it to the cascade of trumped up charges that Manning faced. They had three whole years with Manning incarcerated and being tortured to find something, so if there was anything, they would have found it. And no, they would not have had to fear that any information would leak out onto the "public record". I remind you that Manning was tried in a very secretive military tribunal; if they wanted to hide anything, they could and did.

And while 700,000 documents might sound like a recklessly huge number, that is only 0.76% of what the United States is now classifying every single year. The vast majority of these sorts of documents are boring bureaucratic paperwork. If you've ever been to an archive you'd know what I mean. There is no justification for keeping so much information secret and inaccessible even from the Freedom of Information Act. And no, Manning did not 'dump the documents unreviewed for the whole world to see'; he handed them over to WikiLeaks.
"

"
As for your earlier claim about how Manning must have put people at risk, here is more evidence that the 700,000 documents didn't hurt anybody (this comes from later in the same program by an independent reporter who has been covering the case):
'
And why do I keep saying "lack of damage"? Because in the pretrial record and in public reporting, we know, for example, that Brigadier General Robert Carr, who was the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Information Review Task Force, determined that, you know, there were no sources and methods in these—in the Afghan War Logs or the—sorry, the Afghan War Diary or the Iraq War Logs. Robert Gates wrote a letter to Senator Levin in August of 2010 telling him as much, and that letter is part of the court record. We also know that the Department of State has another classified damage assessment. What’s interesting from the pretrial record of three State Department witnesses is—and also public reporting, is that Kennedy was responsible for testifying to Congress back in December of 2010 and early 2011, and two congressional officials, anonymous congressional officials, told—congressional aides told Reuters that the State Department was—that the impact of the revelations was embarrassing but not damaging.
'
"

"I know that thousands of people (including officials tasked with damage assessment) have looked over those documents for three years and found nothing in the 700,000 documents that caused potential loss for human life."

abgemacht: Go on: elaborate. And you may want to address my first point too.

Certainly

1) I am not convinced at all the Manning provided more insightful information into the reckless nature of the US government than Snowden did. I think that's very hard to tell. What I do know, though, is that Manning's revelations were mostly due to luck based on the shear size of the documents he leaked. Snowden, on the other hand, chose one particular organization and a handful of policies that he thought were unconstitutional. I think there is a clear difference there both in intent and execution.

2) Trusting the media to hold on to sensitive information? That's like giving your money to a gambling addict for safe keeping at the casino. Snowden has, so far, released a slow, controlled stream of pertinent information to the media. Manning released a firehose. Again, these are outrageously different.

Whose Manning is he knew

Slow release of info to the media was what we learned from Manning's leak - the media can't handle a huge amount of data and if you only just them small chunks at a time they can better digest each one.

This is a feature of our modern 'free press'

Wikileaks was specifically trying to figure out the best way(s) to release data to other news outlets to have the biggest impact, (on Global opinion and US policy, not on Iraqi/Afghani security)

Manning specifically leaked info because the war he was witness to was 'unAmerican' - particularily the use of torture, and the indiscriminate killings. He is more of a patriot than a traitor. He didn't "just follow orders" - and thus was dishonourably discharged.

Admittedly I know next to nothing about computer data theory or practice, but here is someone claiming that Manning was not simply grabbing stuff wildly, although he does use the word "reckless." But the guy was trying to expose murder and lawbreaking; it's no surprise he was limited in how he did it.

"The choice of the data he sent to WikiLeaks is full of contradictions people struggle with to this day. The data was both vast and selective. It was unreadable by a single person in any reasonable time frame, and yet reasonable in terms of data analysis. It was a fraction of what was available to him in a SCIF in the Iraqi desert. In the data he chose, Manning was both careful and reckless. As a dataset, his process was select. As human readable material, it was indiscriminate." Quote from: https://medium.com/medium-long/b695860cb6d6

"As human readable material, it was indiscriminate."

I think this gets to the main point of my argument. That information is out there. It doesn't matter it's too much for one person to read because the work can be divided across thousands or millions of people. The data are out there. It can't be taken back. And Manning doesn't even know what he shared.

Obi I forgot to respond and it's probably better to not good too sidetracked, but: I don't agree that the two Roosevelts, especially Teddy, were anything like the Founders, but I do agree that we've been decidedly poor in our selection of executive leadership in certainly the second half of the twentieth century (to say nothing of the abominable record of the twenty-first century presidents).

@ora

But I think *how* you do something is just as important as *why* you do something. In many ways, I think Snowden is a patriot. He saw something was wrong with the country and, at great personal expense, shed light on the issue.

Manning tried to do that, but, in such a haphazard way that I have a much harder time supporting him.

abgemacht: How do you know what Manning was thinking? You claim he just randomly dumped documents, but it appears clear to me that Manning knew the magnitude of what he was revealing. As for "I am not convinced at all the Manning provided more insightful information into the reckless nature of the US government than Snowden did.", I really don't know what to say. Do you live in a hole? Snowden revealed almost nothing. Manning revealed more than you can fathom, including illegal spying operations. It is because of Manning that we know that the United States was spying on and stealing the passwords of the Secretary General of the United Nations! That's huge, and just a very minor revalation compared with what else was in those documents.

And no, I highly doubt that Manning could have run away with so much data on his person like Snowden did. You're suggesting that Manning should have gone AWOL in a war zone and somehow gotten to saftey somewhere with all the documents intact. That doesn't make even a sliver of sense.

ckroberts: Teddy was a racist, imperialist, supremacist asshole. If anyone has a positive opinion of him, I suggest they read The Imperial Cruise, by James Bradley.

abgemacht: "I think this gets to the main point of my argument. That information is out there. It doesn't matter it's too much for one person to read because the work can be divided across thousands or millions of people. The data are out there. It can't be taken back. And Manning doesn't even know what he shared." So what? It's a treasure trove for professors, activists and analysts, yet has not put anyone at risk.