Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years
What do you think? Do you agree? Do you think he should not be in jail? Do you believe the sentence is too lenient?
I believe he broke the law, he was sentenced for what he did. If he didn't agree with the laws as they were then maybe he should have become a politician and try and change the laws.
Not so long back he would have been shot as a spy.Again, nobody is arguing that he didn't break the law. What we are arguing, or rather what we should be arguing, is whether the law is just.
Oh, and "he shouldn't complain about this atrocity, an even greater atrocity occurred earlier in time" ???
Of course he should, but it would have been prudent of him to leave his position and run for president first.
Please tell me what has he achieved? Apart form getting himself 35 years in lock up, did he really think he could change the world!Have you thought about that argument for more than 3 seconds? So you may as well Martin Luther King to stop marching and run for President, and tell the victims of Nazi concentration camps and the Soviet gulags to try and get in with the government to try and agitate change that way. Without getting into the ridiculous disadvantage civil liberty-favouring, anti-war candidates have in the current electoral system, the US government was committing international war crimes - is it outrageous to suggest that letting people know that they were occurring is a much more efficient way of changing things?
The fact that the US government has made such a drastic and public persecution of Manning proves in and of itself that his actions are dangerous to the regime. The fact that these issues are being discussed widely and openly is a good thing: Bradley Manning is the top trend on Twitter! Talk about achievement.It's all very well being the talking point of America but he will still be serving 35 years in prison.
I suppose its more about him being in a position of trust and then betraying that trust.
The American military have always committed atrocities much like all armies around the globe, it will take a little more than one man betraying the trust placed in him by his employers. I wonder if you would feel the same way if he was passing secrets to terrorists so they could commit atrocities, who knows maybe he did.There has been no evidence to suggest that Manning passed information directly to terrorists. There has been no evidence to suggest that the Wikileaks revelations have been the direct cause of a single death, as confirmed by the link towards the bottom of the thread. The government's response and ultimately, the sentence, shows then, that the US sees the revelations as a threat to the image of their foreign policy. You may not agree that Manning has achieved anything, but the US government is absolutely terrified that she will.
If there is no evidence how would you know?
If manning was let off it would give licence for anyone to reveal anything to anyone on the grounds of they personally didn't think it was right.
By accepting full responsibility for his actions and the legal consequences, Bradley Manning is following in a great tradition of civil disobedience. Most of the historic figures who brought about significant change through non-violent means had the the full weight of the law thrown at them at some stage in their lives. They did not seek to avoid the legal consequences of their actions. They surrendered themselves to the law, and in so doing placed a spotlight firmly on the injustice they wanted to highlight. It is that voluntary acceptance of personal punishment for the sake of speaking truth to power that differentiates those people from the rest of us.
Depending on how he copes with the traumatic experiences he has been through, and will go through during his time in prison, we will see either the breaking of a young person, or the creation of a powerful voice for change. He did not hand himself over to the authorities, that's true, but movements need heroes. Even if he himself shies away from the role of being a martyr for a cause, his name will be invoked as exactly that. Facing the legal consequences is an important aspect of that.
He was made an example of: the regime wants you to know what happens to dissenters.
While Bradley was found guilty of 19 different charges, I don't believe "dissension" was one of them.
Unless, of course, disagreeing with a specific law means that you are free (or should be free) to violate it?Breaking un-just laws is in fact a very brave and noble thing to do, in my opinion.
Uhh - just a little modification. "Unjust" in your opinion. Others need not apply for the job of deciding what laws are necessary or desirable, and certainly officials elected by the general population to make laws should check with you first!
Unfortunately, everyone else wants the job, too, with anarchy and societies destruction being the inevitable result when that concept is accepted as workable for everyone.I'm trying to point out the absurdity of discussing whether he broke the law or not. He clearly broke the law, and to point that out in a discussion about whether you think he should be sent to prison or not clearly demonstrates a lack of an argument.
"He was made an example of: the regime wants you to know what happens to dissenters."
There are other reasons to punish lawbreakers, you know. As in because they broke the law. Or am I once more (sigh) misunderstanding the thrust of your comments?Manning catches the US government with its pants down in a clear and vast abuse of power, and we're supposed to buy that the reason he's been persecuted is because of "national security', and/or it's because it forms the part of a noble pursuit for justice and equality before the law. I don't know about you but I'm not the type of person who does buy that kind of thing.
From which I conclude that your opinion is that he should not be punished for violating the law.
Which is what I said in the first place; individuals should be allowed to decide which laws they wish to follow and which they can violate with impunity. I disagree, I'm afraid, and can't see whether violating "caught the US government with its pants down" or not.Correct, because the law is un-just. My view is that people should be just in their actions, and the law is secondary to that.
Until all people have the same idea about what is just, this doesn't seem very workable. Admirable yes, but unworkable in the real world.
Question number 2: do you think it immoral to let the public know about atrocities they are paying for?
Immoral? No. Stupid? Ignoring the loaded terminology "atrocities", yes.
To make public all of the secrets of the military; names and addresses of spies, plans for military action tomorrow, military failures of the past, engineering specifiics of weapons, etc. is immoral, not the reverse.
Again, we all live in the real world, a world where we have enemies trying to hurt us and will use such information to do so. Most people understand that secrets are necessary to retain "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".I'm still waiting to hear: "It is wrong for the military to kill civilians", and it's worrying me that you're dodging it by claiming "atrocious" is a loaded term, and still use words like "traitorous". We're already in the loaded term arena so you may as well bite the bullet.
"Most people understand" is applying the ad-populum fallacy. Many people disagree. Others subscribe to the view that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" can only be served when the people know what their government is doing, and others might go further and say that, amongst other things, it is secrecy that allows their government to ravage the world militarily, and thus cause the resentment that leads to war and terrorism in the first place.1. It is inevitable that the military machine will kill civilians. What is more germane to this switch in topic is "Is it wrong for the military to intentionally target civilians without a military connection?" The answer to that, as far as I know, is "No, not since Dresden/Hiroshima" and a (poor) case could be made that neither targeted civilians without a military connection. That one crazed soldier did it against orders and policy does not mean the military did it.
*edit* Sorry, I slipped here. "Yes, it is wrong for the military to intentionally target civilians without a military connection. There are extremely few cases where it would be right or even OK". Happy?
2. Traitor has a legal, specific definition. "Atrocious" means whatever you want it to, and something different to different people. Loaded, in other words.
3. "Most people understand" also has a specific meaning of "over half". That you, or many, don't understand is irrelevant.
4. That some people believe (or at least claim) that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" can only happen if they know every intimate detail of what their representatives do is irrational and has never been seen since the first tribe of homo sapiens existed. Irrational beliefs have little to do with reality.
5. That some claim secrecy was the cause of the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korean war, Vietnam war, Kuwait War, Iraq War and the war in Afghanistan also has no connection to reality. Secrecy was not the cause of any of those wars; those people confuse "cause" with "contributing tool", picking and choosing between various tools and incorrectly assigning some of them to a cause. Assigning secrecy as a cause of the civil war would be much like assigning horshoe nails as a cause because messages between politicians were carried on horseback.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/j … g-pentagon
"Counter-intelligence officer who investigated WikiLeaks impact undermines argument that Manning leak put lives at risk"
Mannings lawyer is claiming he is a whistle-blower and that President Obama promised to help them on the Change.gov site. Now the site is gone.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201307 … egov.shtmlManning deserved his jail term. Frankly he is lucky he was not shot by a firing squad. No army can fight any war with men like Manning in their ranks.
Then what you are saying is that we need more Mannings, and then nobody will fight wars, and then we'll have world peace.
So manning got 35 years, for leaking information that some would argue is the public interest- where ever you stand on this issue however, wouldn't the next pertinent question be to ask how long the helicopter pilots who massacred civilians were sentenced to?
The mass murder of civilians vs. the leaking of military secrets. Emm, which one is the atrocity?Consider that military secrets are very often instrumental in killing hundreds or thousands. Now think that what Manning gave out was probably more information than was collected on the Nazi's in WWII - information that was again instrumental in winning the war and saving the lives of millions of American Jews. NOW which one is an atrocity.
Pilots that murder civilians and traitors that give away military secrets. Apples and oranges; why would it be pertinent to ask the sentence of people that murder others?
But if you do, the pilot that murdered civilians will be sentenced to life. Forever to remain in prison. Now do you compare 35 years (or any other term) to "forever"?Pilots that murder civilians and traitors that give away military secrets. Apples and oranges; why would it be pertinent to ask the sentence of people that murder others?
Wilderness, part of the leaked information reveals helicopter pilots opening fire on civilians, and they knew that they were civilians and joked about their death. They also murdered a journalist and his family. As far as I am aware, they have not even been charged. It would be pertinent to ask the question because there is evidence that the soldiers also committed offences. Or, should we just overlook that crime and concentrate on Manning's offences?
The pilot that murdered civilians knew he was breaking the law, and he knew what the consequences of his actions would be. Or, does consequential thinking and responsibility only relevant when we discuss Manning's offences?
And, Manning wasn't giving information to the enemy which would have cost lives- it was given to the US public etc. No comparison. And his actions haven't led to atrocities, he exposed atrocities.Manning gave information about pilots killing civilians to the enemy. An enemy which WILL use the information in the propaganda war against the US in the hopes it will produce more terrorists (which it probably will). Still, that has nothing to do with the murderers that killed civilians. Manning chose to help our enemies while your pilots chose to kill our friends. Still can't understand why you would want to know the sentence given the pilots when discussing Mannings traitorous acts. One has nothing to do with the other.
Not charged; I can't comment on the particular incident Manning disclosed, but yesterday's paper contained an article about our soldiers murdering civilians; the death penalty has been denied and the only question is whether the life sentence will be with or without parole. According to my local newspaper article.
"And, Manning wasn't giving information to the enemy..."
Don't be silly; it was made available to the entire world. Which includes enemies that can and will try to use it to kill Americans. Such an action is an atrocity in itself whether you think it is or not.This whole response begs the question: why is the US military committing acts that would provoke terrorism, if they were found out, in the first place?
On another note, it's rather worrying that you label an individual 'traitorous'' for simply allowing the US population to know what is happening with their tax dollars, and I'm yet to see from you an unabashed condemnation of the murder of innocent civilians. Please tell me your priorities are not that screwed up."murderers that killed civilians"
"pilot that murdered civilians"
"soldiers murdering civilians"
Sorry if you can't see "unabashed condemnation of the murder of innocent civilians" in those quotes from my posts; I thought it was pretty plain. Killing is not necessarily murder; by using that term it was an act plainly condemned.
No, I did not label Manning as a traitor for allowing the US public to know what the military was doing; you have intentionally twisted the words beyond all recognition.
But no, it is not begging the question of whether Manning should be in jail. You are doing that by ignoring the question in favor of a completely different topic, just as Hollie is.I really can't. To call something murder is one thing, to condemn it is another.
I find "he broke the law, therefore he should be in jail" insuffient as an argument, as the law is not the ultimate moral barometer. "Should" denotes preferable behaviour, so you have to explain why the law in question is just, and by extension you have to address the action that lead to the breaking of the law. "It's the law" is the vernacular of the tyranny apologist.But neither is innersmiff the ultimate moral barometer. Of the two I will choose the law because while I don't agree with 100% of it and find enforcement to be hit and miss I don't know innersmiff at all. What little I see in the forums seems to indicate that she lives in a make believe world of fantasy when it come to human beings, but even that is very suspect.
You don't need to take my word for it, you only need to apply your everyday preferable behaviour to its logical extent: if you find violence morally repugnant in your everyday life, there is no reason why you should be criticising Manning at all. All I'm asking for is consistency.
Unfortunately for that concept Manning was not charged with (as far as I know) any particular violence and was not convicted of any.
So yes, consistency would be nice - either stick to whether Manning deserved his sentence or the morality of war and the violence inherent in war. The two are separate issues.
And a third issue of course is whether we need laws to govern our nation with and who should make those laws. The elected representatives of the people or innersmiff?
Manning gave information about pilots killing civilians to the enemy.
The information was leaked to Wikileaks. The "enemy" as your put it, are more than the aware of the murderous acts of the military- it is their civilians who are shot down. They don't need Wikileaks to inform of them of their own realities. How will exposing corruption and murder to taxpayers lead to more terrorism? That's the propoganda put out by govts. when they want to keep their wrongdoings under wraps.
Of course the murder of civilians, that Manning exposed, has to do with the leaks- that was one of them. And, as far as I'm aware, the pilots haven't even been charged for murder. As they rightly should be.
Don't be silly; it was made available to the entire world. Which includes enemies that can and will try to use it to kill Americans. Such an action is an atrocity in itself whether you think it is or not.
You appear to forget that your own nation, and mine, are capable and commit, just as many atrocities as the enemy. Such actions are atrocities in themselves, whether you think it is or not.
He is lucky he didn't get shot now we all know (thanks to manning) what the military are capable of.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago
0A firing squad would have been my choice , When you enter any government job , civilian or military , you take an oath to protect your country from just this kind of action ! Please .......he knew what he was doing , looking for a hero status among the P.C. anti government squad !
It's interesting to me how the reaction to Manning, Assange and Snowden isn't:
"Oh my goodness, the American government is vicious, corrupt and is violating the rights of the world"
but
"These people deserve to die"
That seems strange to me.Meanwhile this thread is about whether Manning's sentence was appropriate.
Not appropriate. Manning is a whistleblower and should be treated as one. Duty to the people and doing the right thing override duty to the military - if Manning existed in any other country, the US would be quick to applaud them, but heaven forbid someone expose evils in our own country. Manning should be pardoned immediately.
Not to mention, Manning was tortured and held unconstitutionally for years before she was finally granted a trial. Surely she has more than paid back anything she owed. Who I'd like to see on trial are the soldiers who massacred innocent people, including children, in the Collateral Murder video that Manning leaked in the first place. That's where this discussion ought to be.Apparently the right of the government not to be bothered is more sacred than the rights of the people.
A whistle blower that gave out seven hundred thousand files. Do you honestly think he looked at every file to see if it is appropriate to divulge? Didn't contain information that would harm the country but DID contain information the American public needed to know?
No, he just grabbed what he could and gave it to the world. Anything to gain notoriety and the prison time that he hopes will provide a sex change for him.What an absurd suggestion.
1. Think of the logic of wanting to go through being called a traitor, being held without trial for months and then serving a very long jail time just for a sex change. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!
2. Manning didn't give the information to the public willy-nilly, nor to terrorists, she gave it to Wikileaks. Julian Assange personally rifled through the data, censoring any information that could conceivably be used to harm individuals involved, before releasing it to the public. Manning must have known he would do this otherwise she would have given it to Anonymous or some other source.What a laugh. If you think Assange personally read seven hundred thousand files you need to think again. At 3 minutes per file it would only take 1,458 days, working 24 hours per day without a bathroom break. Believe that if you want; I don't.
But it doesn't matter. Manning may or may not have trusted Assange, but that doesn't matter either. He gave secret information to the public - what hands it went through is irrelevant."A respected broadcaster for SBS Australia, [Mark] Davis was an eyewitness, accompanying Assange during much of the preparation of the leaked files for publication in the Guardian and the New York Times . . . He told me, “Assange was the only one who worked day and night extracting 10,000 names of people who could be targeted by the revelations in the logs.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/john … y-manning/
As to how he did this, I don't know - it is conceivable, as a hacker, Assange has programs that can search for names and can perform mass commands.
Aha, straw-man alert. No one is disputing the fact that secret information was given out, we're disputing Manning's motives, and whether it put anyone in danger. Manning gave the information to someone who was careful not to put anyone in danger, and it has since been confirmed that no one has been harmed by the information. The evidence mounts against your case.Uh huh. You can believe that as you wish.
"censoring any information that could conceivably be used to harm individuals involved"
"extracting 10,000 names of people who could be targeted by the revelations"
Either no one will be harmed by the revelations or 10,000 people were targeted. Which was it?I will because there is no convincing case to be made otherwise. Individuals may have been targeted if the information wasn't filtered, but it was filtered, and no one has been harmed. What exactly is your argument at this point?
Same as it was in the first place; the appearance is that Manning engineered this whole thing because he didn't want to pay for his desired medical treatments.
I find your claim that someone (Manning, Assange, whoever) read every file to make sure no one would be hurt to be utter nonsense. It wasn't done and certainly the person who stole the files (Manning) and thus had total responsibility to do that if he was a whistle blower didn't do it.
There is no possible software that could do that and there is no known group of people that put in the required tens of thousands of man hours to do it either. Ergo, it wasn't done and Manning doesn't care if anyone was hurt or not.So this essentially boils down to the eye-witness account of a respected journalist versus your apparently clairvoyant 'knowing' that it wasn't done. I think you're trolling me.
Do the math yourself, then. Or simply ignore it if it doesn't agree with your high opinion of a thief and other criminals. (I understand Assange is wanted by several countries for similar thefts...)
Although I would have to question the term "respected" relative to anyone involving themselves in handling of stolen materials...It's funny that you're talking to me about theft when you're here defending an institution that relies on theft for its livelihood . . .
I don't need to do the math - there is no evidence to suggest that the journalist lied, as software is perfectly capable of performing the task. Try to imagine a slightly more advanced version of CTRL + F.
SHE (not he) gave files out of moral conscience, because the military was committing despicable acts. The military is not free to do as it wants at the expense of freedom and human rights. It must be held accountable. It was utterly absurd that we're pointing fingers at Manning, who yes, is a whistleblower. I would go so far as to say if such crimes hadn't been reported - that would have been the real crime here. What is most shocking to me is how many people think it's okay that the military has committed so many war crimes.
The notion that she just wanted a sex change is totally absurd. She wanted to face the death penalty and/or spend the rest of her life in prison? Seriously, that argument lacks more than a little logic. Manning very clearly wants to be free and go home. I hate that she had to become a martyr, but that's where she is. And this dialogue is not going to end. History books are going to be much kinder to her than the gov't now.
How was Manning tortured?
Why was his confinement unconstitutional?
GAManning was held in extreme solitary confinement, had to remain naked in her cell, was denied sheets for her bed, and was not given the right to a speedy trial. Everything about her confinement was legally torture. Research a little about the conditions she was held in.
Reference to a law that says not having sheets is torture, please? Or not being given clothing at night?
Just a quick reply,
As I do not see depriving him of underwear at night, ( a suicide protection?), nor a sheet for his bed, (another suicide protection?), as torture, nor referring to a biological male as he an error, - it appears we view the realities of life differently.
ps. I spoke with a friend who is currently a correctional officer in a Maryland facility about the their suicide prevention and solitary confinement practices - he confirmed the underwear issue and sheet issue as suicide prevention tactics, and spoke of the suicide smock as being made of what he describes as "untearable" material. The cell dimensions, and 23 in - 1 out schedule is also standard procedure.
GA
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
Bradley Manning got off easy , considering that the MILTARY justice system would normally consider execution at the act of treason. He is not a whistle blower as much as the divulged of military secrets .You need to remember that as a soldier , military law dictates and has authority over civilian law ! He signed an oath upon voluntarily joining the army ! Not to do just what he did anyway !
Tell me, is killing civilians accepted in military law?
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
It is in battle , under certain conditions , like it or not !
I'm not sure you're aware of what the revelations were. Civilians were intentionally targeted.
Collateral murder in Iraq, one of the items released by Bradley Manning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0Bradley Manning on murder in Iraq:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX6NyElC698Bradley Manning was a hero.
He sacrificed his life in defense of the Constitution of the United States against an increasingly corrupt government.
Bradley Manning was a whistleblower in the classic sense of the word.
It's incredible that the Corporate Party (Military-Industrial Complex) media would concentrate on the man and not the message he tried to share with us.
Bradley Manning exposed government CRIMES! Get that through your thick skull, if you haven't opened your mind, yet.
Oooo! So, there really is such thing as a conspiracy? Yes, and the CIA finally admitted their conspiracy regarding the deposing of a democratically-elected leader of Iran in 1953. Wow! Keeping the world safe for "democracy." What a lie.
On 9/11, we had numerous whistleblowers. Some of them have since died mysteriously. Some of them were arrested (one of them under the Patriot Act for knowing too much about the crimes of the Bush White House -- Susan Lindauer, former CIA asset).
I find it incredible that so many Americans (even Hubbers) who would otherwise be considered extremely intelligent folk, still believe the lies given to us by the Corporate Party media. Perhaps they don't know how to find the alternative media or to research stories on their own.
Perhaps they're too wrapped up in Normalcy Bias to see that America is becoming a Gestapo state.
http://benswann.com/man-brutally-shot-a … car-thief/
http://www.infowars.com/young-deputy-sh … wn-garage/
In one YouTube video, a retired police officer reports that hiring policies within police departments have changed over the years to allow more psychopaths to become police officers. Fewer inhibitions to attack or shoot civilians. Dr. Jim Garrow found out from one retired, top military officer that Obama sent out a questionnaire to some (all?) military officers that forced them to resign if they answered that they would not obey the President in illegal orders to fire upon American citizens.
The seeds of tyranny have been planted and they are choking the lifeblood of the country -- its Constitution and the love of the law.
It's incredible when a top journalist dies in a mysterious crash, the coroner declares that drugs had NOTHING to do with his death, and all of the Corporate media lead with "DRUGS" in their headlines on the death of Michael Hastings. At the very least, that's incompetent journalism. It's character assassination and an implied falsehood. Plus, like Bradley Manning's case, it deflects attention away from the message being delivered by the hero. Hastings was investigating government crimes. Manning was revealing government crimes. Susan Lindauer knew the dirty little secrets behind the Iraq war and how Iraq was very cooperative, but psychopath Bush wanted his dirty little war that would make profits for his buddy Cheney and Halliburton and his Dad and the Carlysle Group.
We know that 9/11 was an inside job. We don't know all the details, yet, but we have proof that 3 buildings in New York were brought down by controlled demolition on 9/11 -- the 2 towers and WTC7.
It's sad that some Hubbers (like GA Anderson) simply bury their heads and call it "conspiracy theory" -- even the facts are "conspiracy theory" to him.
And it's sad that someone like Wilderness, who is otherwise quite articulate and intelligent goes immediately stupid on the subject of physics, thinking that somehow solid steel can ever offer zero resistance to collapse, as it seemingly did for 8 floors of the collapse of WTC7.
The Corporate Party TV, magazines and newspapers don't want you to know the truth. Their Military-Industrial Complex branch is making too much money from their never-ending Cash Cow, War on Terror, while the private Federal Reserve continues to rake in profits on the backs of American citizens who don't know it's a big PONZI Scheme about to go bust. $17 Trillion in National Debt about to go bust -- accelerating toward oblivion.
But it's not all doom and gloom. We can do something about it, but first we have to wake up to the fact that we've been sold a bill of goods by people we should be able to trust.
Look at the message Manning brought us. Look at the fact that America is committing horrible crimes against humanity -- all for Military-Industrial Complex profits -- and the power that worldwide chaos will give to those who are properly positioned when the Debt Bubble Bursts, and the dollar becomes toilet paper.
We could stop the madness by spreading the word and then walking away from the Corporate machine. Stop feeding it your dollars. Spend locally and with small shops. Starve the beast before it eats you and your future.Hello again Lone77star,
I see your passion for the theory that the U.S. government was involved, (perpetrated?), in the 9/11 disaster is unabated. But I was a bit surprised to be referenced in your post as having my head "buried in the sand" regarding the truth of your facts.
2+2=4 is a fact, that controlled demolition brought down the Towers is a theory. I do not believe that your "facts" are beyond dispute, and I also believe that doubting them is not equal to having my head stuck in the sand. (better than being stuck somewhere else)
But looking on the bright side, perhaps we are lucky to have passionate truth seekers like yourself to serve as a bit of counterweight to those of us with our heads in the sand.
GA
Related Discussions
- 138
Do you agree with President Obama pardoning traitor Bradley Manning?
by Ralph Schwartz 7 years ago
Do you agree with President Obama pardoning traitor Bradley Manning?Pvt Bradley Manning stole 700,000 pages of classified data and handed them over to Wikileaks. The 35 year prison sentence was commuted by the outgoing President.
- 61
"A government of laws, and not of men"
by ga anderson 10 years ago
Hah! Do you think John Adams meant this as "written in stone?"Do you think he intended it in the vein of a "Zero Tolerance" position?I don't! I think it should be our Golden Rule, and like gold I think if should have a little malleability.Yes, I admit it. In mass human dealings,...
- 41
Bradley Manning. Really?
by Susan Reid 11 years ago
I haven't seen this discussed so will bring it up.Do you agree with sentence of 35 years in prison?Apparently Private Manning views himself as a female and wants to be called Chelsea.And he demands to start hormone therapy right away.Given that the guy (gal?) was just convicted of leaking...
- 28
Is the law of the land Gods conception?, if not whos is it and why should it be
by The Pac-Man 12 years ago
Is the law of the land Gods conception?, if not whos is it and why should it be followed?Please dont comment if you are going to suggest that one must take solace in the idea of heaven.
- 204
Traitor Sentenced to Ten Years.
by TMMason 14 years ago
Lynne Stewart, the retarded traitor atty. for Omar Shiek Abdel Rahman was given 28 months plus 8 years.I think this is great. And yes I realize it may be tantamount to a death sentence for her.Too bad.She isn't running her Leant leftist mouth now.
- 83
What specific Conservative position do you disagree?
by Jack Lee 7 years ago
Let's just cut to the chase. I have initiated a discussion here on hubpages forum regarding the media and conservatives but here is the bottom line.This is an appeal to all liberals and progressives...and libertarians...and moderates...What specific conservative belief, policy, or ideals do you...