Bradley Manning faces 52 years in jail

Elected people are just part of what government is.... they are the tip of an iceberg composed of staff which is hired, judges who are appointed... agencies with career people who get their jobs- presumably for other that political reasons- anything that government money funds is part of government... police, fire departments, military, treasury, every agency whose function it is to enforce regulation.

As far as republican versus democrat... well I can't argue that there's nothing genuine about the rancor displayed between the two faction... and often within the same party, I see as it being played up as part of the "for public consumption" arm of the government which I believe extends well beyond the duties of the press secretary, and includes generated distractions- like the public testimony before house subcommittee by major league baseball players on something so critically important to our safety and economic stability, like steroids in baseball. When one stops to think that it was at this time that the toxic housing scheme whose eventual collapse would bring down the economy was in full swing- and especially considering that our very own precious government, which promotes itself as a protector of our way of life willfully allowed what can easily be seen as a criminal scheme to defraud at so many points in the mortgage to securities process that in the context, the subpoenas and testimonies of Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, and Roger Clemens appear as government sponsored distractions to keep popular attention away from the willful abetting on the part of our elected officials.

Real governing is likely done invisibly... televised debate and testimony seems to be for public consumption and little else- for instance forcing the CEOs of the "big three" automakers to answer subpoenas and publicly testify was done for public consumption only when it became apparent that shoveling hundreds of billions to prop up failed business models wasn't going to resound very well with us, the cattle... the sheep, the money garden.

The campaign of rhetoric against wikileaks only escalated to action when they threatened the release of corporate related documents, including those pertaining to Bank of America... THEN Visa and Mastercard cut off funding... internet service was also disrupted and Assange was arrested on charges likely so trumped up that they were originally dismissed in August. The only likely scapegoat for the leaks was to be Manning who was arrested in June.

To me that says who is REALLY in charge... who pulls the strings to get action out of what is fed to the common man as being the government. Real power likely does not change hands because some election... though it can be argued that we all elect the real power brokers when we put money into huge corporations and use credit cards. All else is likely smoke and mirrors.

If they want Bradley Manning to serve 52 years he WILL serve it... regardless of what he leaked to Wikileaks reveals, and whether it can be argued that his efforts would actually protect the constitution from the people who are really destroying it.

 

If the media is so instructed to kill the story, there will be little protesters can do to shed any light on Manning's situation or to change how the protest is characterized. Protesters may inadvertently be giving ammo to the media if the aim is to marginalize them and discredit the stance.

 

Your source and a link, please!

 

I'm positive your government works like our government and most democracies...people vote a particular party "in government".
Not 3 or 2 but 1.

Thats Incorrect, check your facts... we do not have single party systems.

Elected democrats and republicians represent the government. Check the definition of government.

Haliburton has alot of relevance to your request for companies that what to see him hang. It doesn't get any more corrupt then them.

 

Here they are, the first link is directly from a report from those who have visited him, the second link is a more broad coverage of his treatment...

http://my.firedoglake.com/blog/2010...ns/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/23/manning

 

I didn't say you had a single party system.
I said people voted for one party to be in office and this time they decided to go with the Democrats.

Rather than go around in circles let me say I think you are being ridiculous and lets leave it at that.

Is that your opinion?

 

Both of those sources are laughable in their bias and both are actually based on the "reporting" of one individual with his own ax to grind.

 

Well, they voted the republicians in...sure Obama is democrat...but look at the recent numbers set to "takeover" to your standard on january 3rd... I guess the democrats can be ignored now since what they say don't matter anymore. ? really? I stopped going round and round pages ago...your just clueless, you just described a 1 party system.

On Haliburton, you just said you know nothing about.... but you question me, check your facts out on them. Are you a professional troll? I stopped going round and round pages ago when I remembered, "you can't fix stupid" think what you want sheep...more power to ya! BBBBAAAAAA!

 

How?

A single-party state, one-party system or single-party system is a type of party system government in which a single political party forms the government and no other parties are permitted to run candidates for election. Sometimes the term de facto single-party state is used to describe a dominant-party system where laws or practices prevent the opposition from legally getting power. Some single party states only outlaw opposition parties, while allowing subordinate allied parties to exist as part of a permanent coalition such as a popular front. Within their own countries, dominant parties ruling over single-party states are often referred to simply as the Party. For example, in reference to the Soviet Union, the Party meant the Communist Party of the Soviet Union; in reference to the former People's Republic of Poland it referred to the Polish United Workers' Party.

I don't think I said anything similar to that.

*sigh* I didn't say I knew nothing about them.
I wondered if "Haliburton" had made any inferences they wanted this man dead.
Implying that they might not like information on them in the public domain doesn't mean they want this man dead.
Quite frankly I doubt "Haliburton" cares.
I have no problem if these accusations about "Haliburton" wishing this man dead is your opinion, but good grief, just say that.

You can't even get what I have and have not said right.
That's why i'm not going around in circles with you.
To a reasonable person stating the Democrats are in government is fair.
If somebody else agrees with your logic I'd like them to explain their reasonings, as you just come across as a little drunk and confused.

 

Did he break a law?

 

If your going to leak a huge amount of very embarrassing data like Manning did, you *do not* blab about it on the internet, and you do cover your tracks.

I can see no reason why the US government would not imprison him for as long as they can get away with if they found out.

By being careless he was just asking for it, and nothing can spare him now.

 

So, If I don't agree with you and your views? I shouldn't give my opinion?

Fuck that.

Are you the kind of kid who took your ball home, when you didn't get your way in the playground.

52 years is too short.

 

I didn't say you shouldn't give your opinion... I was just saying I thought you were not going to find much agreement here though I do concede that you'll find some. I do not agree with you but will be diligent in doing what I can here so you are able to express it... I won't insult you for expressing it either- which seems to be the direction you're taking this... pity.

It is my opinion that what he did as far as leaking the information is little different from what Daniel Ellsburg did in 1969 in taking photocopies of what was to be known as the Pentagon Papers. I do not buy the premise that the leaked information placed troops in any more danger than initiating an illegal war in the first place.

I do not trust any of the news sources- and one thing that cements my decision over a year ago to all but completely shut off my cable is not having MSNBC, CNBC, and Fox News channel to feed me nuggets of half truths meant on conditioning my response to the misdeeds of my government rather than just informing me. The selection process of what I "need to know" seems missing in the Wikileaks which suggests to me that Manning ought to be appreciated for furnishing information for us that we would never have found out if the criminals who we've sent to govern us had their way. In furnishing evidence of our governments assault on the constitution, he in my opinion, made good on his oath to protect it.

It is the criminals whose deliberately opaque style of government has served as effective cover for all manner of criminal behavior who should be facing SOMETHING- though I think 52 years is too lenient unless it is spent in front of a firing squad. It is their criminal behavior that validates Wikileaks.

 

If the data he leaked leads to someone being killed he should be given the death penalty. IMO

 

he should have been more careful who he gave the information too... i imagine everyone who ever contributed to wikileaks have very nervous sphincters now, as assange' face and name is all over the media....

i always assumed annonymity would be very important in that line of business... but assange practices anything but

 

here i was under the impression wikileaks was our stand against government. because of which - i'm confident we, the public and victims, will not let this man be imprisoned.

no wait, we probably will. god bless free speech and the revolution.

 

this was my argument a while back, people said i was a dick. ultimately though, it's true.

 

they called you a dick because assange' ego wouldn't allow his organisation the safety afforded by anonymity?

people are fookin' weird man