Should Bradley Manning be denied access to Australia for his speaking tour?

[JimRSmith]

Bradass himself.

Yes, he's a convicted perp, who's done time for espionage

No, they should make an exception for him

Don't Know

Triggered - you should have called him Chelsea!!!

[Knighted2170]

He (or she) was charged with 22 offenses, including aiding the enemy, which could have resulted in the death penalty. He was convicted in a court martial for violations of the espionage act along with other charges.
Whistle blower or not, Bradley plead guilty to 10 of the offenses. The final verdict was guilty on 17 or the original offenses, along with 4 others that had been modified (probably dropped to a lesser charge). The major charges against Bradley included: Violating the Espionage Act, stealing government property, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, multiple counts of disobeying orders.
The day after Bradley was sentenced to serve 35 years he announced he identified as a female since he was a child.
Because of the charges, and the female identity, he was placed on close custody status for his own protection. This would be the second time Manning would be separated from others for being "picked on."
In my opinion, Hell Yes, Manning should be denied entry and speaking. He was an E-4 and operated without all the facts. He was a problem child from the very outset of his military service.
There is no way a person who puts the lives of military service members at risk should be able to make money off their crimes. Not just U. S. Military, but those of other allied nations. Of the 400,000 documents leaked, many contained information of joint operations and exposed the capabilities of the U. S. and Allied countries.
The fact that he got a commuted sentence for betraying his uniformed brothers and sisters, and now thinks he can run for U. S. Senate as a convicted felon while making money speaking on his war crimes is sickening.
I think I made my point. I don't like this individual.

[JimRSmith]

Absolutely fantastic response. I find the idea of him earning a crust from what he's done morally repellent, too.

[Knighted2170]

I could go on for a while about this person. Especially, because he claims part of his problem was caused by gender identity crisis and not being able to be honest with who he really was.
That should be offensive to the entire LGBT community. To use them as a scapegoat for his actions? Really?

[SydTheDM]

@Knighted2170 unfortunately, a lot of people in the lgbtq community dont see her as a criminal, it's the same people that don't see snowden as a criminal. Did they do a service to the people of the United States by whostle blowing? Maybe, who's to say? Did they do something highly illegal? Hell yes, and they should be tried and convicted of that. The reasons behind their actions do not excuse the methods. The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

[the-terrible-travis]

Chelsea Manning didn't commit any war crimes. She EXPOSED war crimes. No one died as a result of her actions - that was a bullshit line from the U. S. State Department they came up with as an excuse to throw a whistleblower in prison.

The fact that she was commuted isn't what's sickening - what's sickening is the fact that she was ever prosecuted in the first place. She's a hero - she should've been rewarded for her actions, not punished.

[Knighted2170]

@the-terrible-travis: He leaked classified and sensitive documents, that is a crime. You don't know if anyone was killed over those leaks or not, it's an assumption you are making. You were what, 8 years old when this happened? How much knowledge are you actually working with on actually took place after the documents went public?

[the-terrible-travis]

Daniel Ellsberg also leaked classified information, but we don't look at him as a traitor or criminal - we look at him as a hero. We should look at people like Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning the same way.

And it's not an "assumption" I'm making - it's the finding of an official investigation conducted by the Pentagon into these events.

[Knighted2170]

@the-terrible-travis: What official investigation by the Pentagon are you referring to?

[the-terrible-travis]

G@G won't let me link the article, but it's called "Bradley Manning leak did not result in deaths by enemy forces, court hears". If you Google the title, you should find it.

[Knighted2170]

@the-terrible-travis: I thought that would be your answer. It is actually not 100% accurate. The real answer is no one really knows what the outcome was. The real answer was people did die. That was reported in court testimony, by General Carr. It was also testified, by General Carr, that no one specifically identified in the reports died as a result of the leak in a two question testimony. Not all of the court documents have been released. Some documents covering sensitive material were discussed behind closed doors and have not been released. The full ramifications of the leak may never be disclosed.
In regards to Snowden, he was a contractor and not subject to the UCMJ. If he was not viewed as, or thought of himself as, a criminal, he would not have flown and living under asylum in Russia. Ellsberg was also a contractor through RAND Corp. and not subject to the UCMJ. His charges were also dismissed 5 months after being set. Snowden and Ellsberg are also not topics of the question.

[Hannajenky]

If anyone was harmed by snowden or manning, i guarantee it would have been plastered all over the news. The fact is the only harm was to the lying faces of the generals and leaders of the us and allied military. They lie to us and will be held accountable. It doesn't matter what you think of manning his sentence was commuted and your opinions dont really matter anymore lmao. Go watch more fox booze maybe one day you’ll learn how to have an independent thought

[Hannajenky]

Yeah, and no one knew our military assasinates reporters until the documents were leaked. And no one knew the extent of the spy program and how the military is spying on us citizens until the documents came out. The generals were caught in a lie and tried to save face by saying they revealed sources and put lives at risk. It’s obviously made up PR bullshit used so that the generals dont have to answer for their own crimes and instead deflect.

[Knighted2170]

@Hannajenky: You obviously didn't read the court documents and transcripts. Until you have done that, you are working with limited knowledge and facts. Go ahead and read the court documents and transcripts, then come back. They are out there, one site has all of the one's that are available.
I'll wait.

[BlueCoyote]

Chelsea Manning should have never been in prison in the first place. She did a tremendous service and sacrifice to the American people. Whistle blowers are supposed to be celebrated for revealing to their fellow citizens how they're getting fucked in the ass by their own government. There's hardly more patriotic people than them and yet they get treated like shit.

I love how conservatives drool over words like "freedom" and "democracy" and claim to be all critical of their government but the second someone comes along and says: "okay look, I found some damning evidence that our government is doing some really fucked up stuff" they go: "You traitor How dare you! Go rot in prison!"

[MidnightCowboy]

Conservatives only care about free speech when it fits their own agenda

[NearlyNapping]

"okay look, I found some damning evidence that our government is doing some really fucked up stuff"

That's not what he did. If you think that's what this is about then you don't know enough to even be addressing this issue.

[SydTheDM]

Its not what she leaked, it is how she did it. Coming from that background, there are ways to go about it. Sending 750k files to a known cyber criminal (and rapist) isn't the way to do that.

[BlueCoyote]

@SydTheDM
Is that why Reality Winner is now sitting in prison for 5 1/2 years? Did she also do it "the wrong way"? I smell cop-outs and excuses.

[BlueCoyote]

@SydTheDM
By the way, Julian Assange has never been convicted of rape, those were only allegations.

Also, calling someone a cyber criminal who hacks political agencies for the public good seems rather absurd to me. That's like calling someone a thief who steals something back that has previously been stolen from him. Okay, technically he's a thief but those details kinda matter now, don't they?
Julian Assange committed "cyber crimes" (aka hacking) in order to reveal to the public what kind of dirty things are going on behind the curtain. And the point here is: the public should be knowing these things already and anyway without the need of someone hacking into those agencies.

[BlueCoyote]

@NearlyNapping
There was an official US government policy to ignore the illegal status of torture in Iraq. That's how the US could build terror camps like Abu Graib. If you don't think that's fucked up then frankly I don't know what to tell you.

[SydTheDM]

Assage can't be tried because he is hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy...
You are absolutely correct on the rest of it though. I just think they need to lie in the bed they made. Running and hiding just validate the real wrong doers- the US Pentagon.

[Hannajenky]

Lmao have fun reading the documents and court transcripts. Are you that daft? Manning and snowden will go down in history as heroes, and those who disagree will be known as bigots

[Wonderer89]

If we say no to criminals like Johnny Depps doggos then we should to this guy too

[abundantlyrich]

Is he a transgender now? Australia has stupid rules. Yes.

[madhatters4]

i don't personally think they shouldn't but it is their law and as such they should apply it fairly to all. it is American law as well and as such it should be respected.

chelsea manning should have the same laws applied to her as any other person with a felony record

[NineBreaker]

I'm going to try to give an answer regardless of what I think of manning, or whatever biases I may have:

The more important question is: Do criminals (especially former criminals) have the same right to free speech the rest of us do? If Australia has similar legal guarantees for free speech, based on the spirit of the law alone, the answer should be no. He should not be denied access to speak about something.

However, if the issue revolves around enforcing immigration laws that would deny entry for a known criminal, then the answer could be yes, Australia can deny him entry regardless of whether or not the the decision would be considered ethical.

Basically, the important question is: What does Australia's legal code surrounding immigration and visitation of foreign nationals say about this situation?

[Cosytoasty]

If there’s a legal basis to do so, I don’t see why not.

I could technically be banned from entering the US for having my feet up on a train seat (no exaggeration lol), so I think the crimes he has committed would carry far more weight and Australia has every right to decline his visa.

[JimRSmith]

Yes, I agree. He's been given a 35 year sentence for espionage, and handed a massive amount of confidential information over to people who then made it available to terrorists, so I'm absolutely down with this. I just hope we do the same, if he ever applies to come here.

[Hannajenky]

The president releases information to terrorists every day via his twitter. Just because terrorists can read the internet does not mean releasing important info to American people is the same. These leakers will be heroes, and the most of the other characters will be forgotten

[monkeynutts]

www.politifact.com/.../

[NearlyNapping]

Somebody should kill that piece of shit. Very very slowly and painfully.

[Hannajenky]

Maybe they should do the same with you. Probably for the best

[NearlyNapping]

@Hannajenky
Go fuck yourself. Anyone who supports that piece of shit should get the same as him. Seriously go kill yourself.

[Hannajenky]

No thanks. You sound angry at the world. I recommend therapy. Manning and Snowden are heroes. I’m sorry if you don’t think so, but history will probe you wrong

[McKellar]

The United State did something stupid & wrong, Manning just exposed their stupidy.

Same thing goes for Ed Snowden. He exposed to the world about mass surveillance which is mainly operated by The U. S. coverted agencies.

[ZeussLightningBolt]

I don't know who that is so I can't comment.
But I know they tried to ban Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux for speaking.

But in general, unless they commited a serious crime, I think they deserve to speak to those who want to listen

[CaptainSmartass]

How he isn't doing time in Gitmo, I don't know...

Simples...

[Sixgun77]

That's up to Australians, but I wouldn't want him coming to my country.

[Charlotte_May]

Didn't this dude get honest Yankee's killed by spying for the enemy?

[goaded]

No. They exposed what the US military was doing in Iraq, which wouldn't have come out without them.

"Items of historical significance of two wars Iraq and Afghanistan Significant Activity, Sigacts, between 0001 January 2004 and 2359 31 December 2009 extracts from CSV documents from Department of Defense and CDNE database.

These items have already been sanitized of any source identifying information.

You might need to sit on this information for 90 to 180 days to best send and distribute such a large amount of data to a large audience and protect the source.

This is one of the most significant documents of our time removing the fog of war and revealing the true nature of 21st century asymmetric warfare.
Have a good day."

[Charlotte_May]

@goaded He's still an abomination though

[Hannajenky]

If he is then ao are you

[MidnightCowboy]

I believe in freedom of speech

Plus I respect everyone who calls out the corruption of the government

[MarketData]

I'm not Australian so I don't care. Frankly neither should you.

[John_Bouff]

This dude had some dudes killed for leaking info about ISIS and shit

[Juxtapose]

He's not a criminal, just a whistle blower :/

[JimRSmith]

He's a convicted criminal.

That's not just my opinion, it is a legal fact.

[Juxtapose]

Gee, I wonder *why* he's a criminal?

Could it be that the government wants to keep their corruption under wraps? Duuuuh.

Weed is also illegal, that's legal fact. Water can kill you via overdose (water toxicity is a thing), weed can't. That's a fact. The government is doing shady shit and punishes whistle blowers, that's a fact.

[JimRSmith]

He's a criminal, because he was convicted of breaking the law. It really is that simple.

[Chaz269]

The idea that a whistle blower is a criminal isn't just a cop-out, it's ignorant. All you've got is, "Cuz da law." Well, when governments are corrupt, they use the law to marginalize hero whistle-blowers and true patriots. Only fascists and idiots wouldn't bother to question that.

[Hannajenky]

@Chaz269 if you have ever gone one mile over the speed limit or change lanes without using a turn signal you are also a criminal. If you spit on the sidewalk ever in your lifetime or crossed the steet you are even worse criminal than the leakers

[KatherineJ]

S/he should still be in prison

[goaded]

Nice to know you're aware of being a dick.

[SirRexington]

I don't know who this person is...

[AlphaMaleTruth]

Fuck cuck neo nazi trump hating feminist Australia

[ThePundertaker]

Yeah

[laughinglad999]

Thats good breaking bad