Chelsea Manning is a Hero

[Jamie D]

Exactly. Jamie, your arguments seem to largely rely on pointing out how the U.S. military is not as bad as the terrorists. Being not as bad as others doesn't mean you're not behaving badly. It seems to rely on George Bush reasoning, i.e. "You're either with us or your with the terrorists." and I just don't buy into that false dichotomy.

I tend to see things in more black & white terms.  Moral rights and moral wrongs.  Derived from our natural rights.  I largely reject moral relativism.

[dalebert]

It has nothing to do with moral relativism. They can be doing immoral things and the U.S. military can be doing other things that are also immoral, maybe not as bad, but it doesn't make them good or even acceptable. Just because two sides are fighting doesn't mean one side must be clearly right and one side clearly wrong.

[DriftingCrow]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Most things are pretty gray in the big picture. Microscopically  you can narrow some acts down to being goood or bad. Of course it all depends on your personal set of morals and beliefs.

[Jamie D]

It has nothing to do with moral relativism. They can be doing immoral things and the U.S. military can be doing other things that are also immoral, maybe not as bad, but it doesn't make them good or even acceptable. Just because two sides are fighting doesn't mean one side must be clearly right and one side clearly wrong.

I agree that could be a case.  I disagree that is the case.  In the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq (the conflicts Manning felt motivated to highlight), there were some clearly bad people involved (i.e. the Taliban, Saddam Hussein's regime, etc)

[Cindy]

Our enemies are our friends and innocence does not exist

I'm not buying into any of the debate. I'm certainly not qualified to comment on Ms Manning. But I do find the hypocrisy of Nations to be stunning.

Including my own BTW.

The Taliban were once USA allies. The CIA overthrew legitimate democratically elected governments. The English raped and pillaged the world to forge its Empire. The Australians have dominated Asia as it wished - and had a White Australia policy and slaughtered the Aboriginal population.

We better not discuss slavery or the fate of the Native American Aborigines.

The Dutch, Spanish, French and Germans have invaded countries to loot them. As have Russia, China, Japan, Italy.

Anyone I've left out? Probably - of course I have!

There is no such thing as 'right' among countries, there is only expedience. And the conqueror is always in the right and has the gods on its side.

That is what humans are.

[Ltl89]

I agree that could be a case.  I disagree that is the case.  In the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq (the conflicts Manning felt motivated to highlight), there were some clearly bad people involved (i.e. the Taliban, Saddam Hussein's regime, etc)

I disagree.  You don't either have to be "either with us or with the terrorists".  When I was a kid, I opposed the Iraq War very vocally.  It wasn't because I sided with Saddam, but I disagreed with the administration and was concerned about the implications of an invasion.  Saddam was a horrendous person that deserved everything he got; however, I don't feel the U.S. planned this well or thought about what occupying Iraq would mean.  Quite frankly, I think my concerns were proven right and many Americans would feel the same.  Does that mean that most of us are with the terrorists? So, yeah I disagreed with both sides and would vigorously disagree that my opposition to the war has anything to do with showing support for the other side.  I love my country, but I have a right to disagree with some of it's actions.  A true patriot and good citizen is one who stands up for what they believe in.  If this is to be a true democracy, then various voices should be heard without being castigated.  No one should be reprimanded for not agreeing with every action of their government..  Saying "you're either with us or with the terrorists" does just that; and in the process,  it undervalues both democracy and the foundation of this country. 

By the way, even if you believe things are black and white, the U.S does not.  Like most nation-states, the U.S cares about their individual interests and sometimes will go to questionable lengths to promote it.  Remember, Saddam wasn't always an enemy of the U.S as he once had friendly ties.  There are countless dictatorships and authoritarian regimes that America has backed in the name of national security and general interests.  Some of these dictators have been linked to serious human rights abuses and other shady practices.  Plus, the CIA has been actively involved in the past with overthrowing democratically elected governments for US interests.   The world isn't black and white nor is it viewed that way by America or any other nation state.  Things are much more complex. 

P.S.  I feel weird associating the Iraq War with fighting terrorism, since the war really wasn't about that issue at all.  Sure, there were insurgents in the aftermath of the invasion, but the issue was about Saddam's regime and the stability of Iraq.

[dalebert]

I agree that could be a case.  I disagree that is the case.  In the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq (the conflicts Manning felt motivated to highlight), there were some clearly bad people involved (i.e. the Taliban, Saddam Hussein's regime, etc)

You keep making that argument, and I'm not denying it, but it has no bearing on the acceptableness of the actions of the U.S., unless your argument is that they were SO bad that ANY action on the part of the U.S. military was justified AND worthwhile to do regardless of the harm done, but good luck convincing me of that.

[Phoenix_2812]

I don't know why people keep throwing the words hero and heroine around. A hero or heroine is someone that does something brave for the good of others. What Chelsea Manning did was reckless. At least that is what I think for the most part. Secrets are never a good thing. They do more harm than good. Governments like to keep secrets and rather than explain why they have them when they come out, they choose to act all defensive and persecute those responsible for leaks.

Jamie, I disagree that Chelsea's actions diminish the transgender community's credibility simply because she was in the news. She acted alone. What she did has no bearing on any other trans person in the world. But hey, we're all entitled to our opinions, right? That's yours and this is mine. Thing is, you and I see things more or less the same. You see things in black and white and I'm a realist. We should so form a group!!

I'm tired of the news, it's always doom and gloom. This country is fighting that country. That guy can't find a soap box big enough to stand on. Where have all the feel good stories gone?!

Chris

[DriftingCrow]

Chelsea Manning Doesn't Want Anyone To Speak For Her While In Prison
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/chelsea-manning-doesnt-want-anyone-to-speak-for-her-while-in
Author: Jessica Testa Source: BuzzFeed via The Guardian

In a statement published by the Guardian on Wednesday, Chelsea Manning expressed disappointment with the "substantial disconnect" between her and those representing her in the outside world.

"It's not terribly clear to me that my actions were explicitly done for 'peace,'" she wrote in a statement after discovering a peace award was accepted on her behalf.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Manning rejects 'pacifist' label in first statement since sentencing
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/09/chelsea-manning-not-a-pacifist
Author: Ed Pilkington Source: The Guardian

Chelsea Manning, the WikiLeaks source formerly known as Bradley Manning, has expressed intense unhappiness at the public profile that is being presented about her, warning that a false impression is being given to the outside world that she is an anti-war pacifist and conscientious objector.

Rather, she sees herself as a "transparency advocate" who is convinced that the American people needs to be better informed.

--------------------------------------
While these aren't Opinions & Editorials, I thought they related to this topic.

[Jessica Merriman]

Hey folks, there are former soldiers and airmen here, OK? Two in this topic alone, are we not family anymore? Be nice.

[DriftingCrow]

Hey folks, there are former soldiers and airmen here, OK? Two in this topic alone, are we not family anymore? Be nice.

My brother-in-law is an Airman and I come from a family with a military history. I appreciate your service Jessica. 

[Ltl89]

Hey folks, there are former soldiers and airmen here, OK? Two in this topic alone, are we not family anymore? Be nice.

I have no problem with soldiers in any form.  If my comments about anything was taken as such, then I apologize.  Soldiers aren't to be blamed for the decisions of the generals or the civilian leadership.  Still, it's okay to disagree with the policy makers and speak up about it, if you disagree with their decisions.  That's the American way, and I know many of the people  that are standing up for past policy decisions are openly critical towards the current civilian leadership in every single form.  So, disagreeing with military policy or policy decisions, isn't really tantamount to being anti-soldier.  Though, I do see some comments that are and in no way do I endorse those views. 

Besides not wanting to offend soldiers, I wouldn't want to get on Devlyn's bad side, lol.  She's whipped me into shape before (and still does), so I try to avoid her wrath as best as possible, lol.   

[dalebert]

What's long and hard and full of seamen?

I was stationed on a submarine in the Navy.