Cool, thanks for the reply.
I try and stay informed even as an american, but there are some reasons why I'll simply never vote. Personally its just hard for me to care about politics anymore, there's no honesty and voting yes cus you actually believe yes. That on top of the fact that politicians hardly ever read the bills they end up voting on, kickbacks and tons of other issues that plague our political system.

I find it hilarious that a boycott is considered a valid form of protest... unless you boycott voting in the US, then you're the devil and whatever happens is clearly your fault!

The congressional hearing stuff is sabre rattling so far on this issue of Wikileaks. Lieberman's a nutjob and is trying to regain some credibility after his last scandal and no one listens to Feinstein (though she amazingly does do some stuff I support I think it's serendipity rather than her being "on the ball" in any way).

Also, I brand thee thread necromancer!

Lieberman is indeed a nutjob. No more need be said on him. Having "grown up" with Feinstein, I can say that she has legitimate "Limousine-Liberal" credentials. She will do the right thing every time it doesn't cost her funding from investment banks and military contractors. (so yeah, sometimes I have to hold my nose and say "thanks, Dianne")

And as an American, a military veteran, and a patriot, let me say I support Wikileaks 100%. Julian Assange may well be a bleeding asshole in person, but he is performing a vital service to democracy. (a political system the US still pretends to endorse). He has kept his promise to redact information that could put individuals in harm's way, stuck to his guns, and forced game with all the major powers.

We are at a point, friends and readers, where either democracy changes radically, or democracy dies. I'd prefer the former, I think Assange would too.

Hey i saw some thing interesting here http://new-wikileaks.yolasite.com/ USA going 2 attack Israel .
is it real guys ?
it was on members area

So the United States want a life sentence for an homosexual because he made crimes of the US army public.

http://abovethelaw.com/2012/02/court-martial-begins-for-bradley-manning-he-faces-22-counts-and-life-in-prison/

Yeah, I'm sure all 700 hundred thousand documents he leaked were all about crimes.

Not all, but some. And don't forget Steve Green did get life for raping a 14 year old girl and killing her family = her parents, her six year old sister, and herself.
Do you think it is right to give the same sentence for someone who simply publishes documents?

I think it depends on what was in those documents. He possibly put the lives of many people in danger. He gave them willingly to someone he knew would make them publically available. So what's the difference if he gave them directly to the enemy?

Can't say I have an opinion about this right now, not having paid much attention for a while.

Part of my impression of this matter however is that Manning has intentionally released information which can compromise personnel- and operations security in some areas. Maybe he has achieved something good in all this (I wouldn't know), but risking the lives of e.g. local informants in Afghanistan etc. does not sit well with me.

It is a little bit more complicated than that. And what excactly as his sexual orientation to do with this? Should he be released because he is gay?

Life sentence is a bit harsh, but I don't know the amercian laws in that regard. Dishounorable discharge and a plea bargain for an extended probation would be reasonable, imo.

Well, the US Army clearly has a motive to wrongly get homosexuals convicted!

And if the release of those documents put the life of people into danger, why were they created in the first place? By an organisation, nonetheless, that lost all of its trust by people during the crimes it did in the Vietnam war! By an organisation that has committed murder against civilians and reporters in Iraq as well!

I see a big contradiction hanging there. If they wouldn't have wanted those documents to be released, they would not have given Manning access to them, especially after knowing about his unstable mental state!

I'm not sure how he's being charged, but 22 counts can really add up if there is a conviction for each one. If the maximum is 5 years per conviction (that's an arbitrary amount, I don't know what it is for what he's charged) and they are assigned to be served as consecutive sentences, well 110 years is quite a long time. It's not that he's getting life in prison for one crime, they add up, or at least can add up, depending on how sentenced. Also, this is just what is being charged, it is quite possible the outcome will be different.

Have you actually been in the military? Or any other governmental branch that has classified information? You would be surprised what is all documented and archived that is never supposed to see the light of day. And you know why? Because people are being held accountable for what they do. Usually in a more "hush hush" enviroment, but that has some very good reasons.

And this case has absolutely nothing to do with DADT. Gay or straight simply doesn't matter in this case. I personally think that his defense is trying to use that as a strategy, nothing more (never the less a clever strategy). Gay men and woman have served proudly and with great honor in the armed forces of the US and many other nations, without their sexual orientation causing any "mental instabilities".

If a subordinate, especially an OR-3, has a problem with military orders, he reports this to his superior officer and then requests a transfer. You do not put military secrets in the hands of a civilian. And certainly not the way he did it. The information he provided wasn't really new, nor really shocking. Pretty much business as usual in an irregular warfare zone, as cynic as it might sound. If he could have stopped an Abu Graib that was in the happening, this would have a whole different issue. But he didn't stop a crime, he just reported one.

I'm not defending the Iraq War or the military actions of the US army. The war was a mistake, from beginning to finish. It started with a lie (as most wars) and was contucted poorly by an incompetend civilian leadership. But there is a time and place for justice and redemption. This wasn't it. His actions, while commendable under different circumstances, could have had unforseen consequenzes that would not only put his comrades at risk, but the political progress of a whole region. Wrongful killings in an hostile, counter-insurgency enviroment has to be dealt with discretion (Which is, btw, happening constantly and regularily with very high compensations for the families of the victims). As otherwise you might blow up a powderkeg and cause more, worse violence. Just look whats happening in Afghanistan right now, we are losing ten years of progress in mere days.

Believe it or not, US/NATO is trying its utmost to avoid civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. So far, as it puts operational security and the well being of military personal in far greater danger than necessary. This isn't Vietnam, and the other side is fighting a lot dirtier than we are. We are under a lot more scroutiny (and that is something good), but that tends to blend out what we are up against.

A life sentence is certainly not something I find a fitting judgement. Dishonorable discharge, combined with probation and maybe a couple of years in a low security prison would be fitting for what he has done. Trying to make an example (and a martyr) out of him certainly isn't the right option anyway you look at it.

And I like the idea of Wikileaks, it can do a lot of good. But this isn't what Wikileaks should be used for. Situtations like those in Homs or governmental corruption should be the aim of Wikileaks. Current crimes, with other words. You can leave the ones we failed to stop for the courts, that is what they are there for.

If you like it or not, even the crew of that helicopter deserves due process. And not the pillory of the internet.
Do you really add up each charge in the US? Can't you form a "combined sentence". E.g. if I murder 6000 people, I still only get one life sentence in Germany.

Sentences can consecutive or concurrent here. It really depends on what was done and what the court decides.

You can serve multiple life sentences in the US and I *think* they are generally served concurrently. Serving multiple life sentences keeps the convict in prison if one sentence happens to get revoked.

So just saying someone is "charged" with something and faces up to sentence X really has no meaning other than that's what the prosecutors are hoping to get. Usually prosecutors go high because, as with bargaining, you want to give yourself some room.

If someone steals a candy bar from a store, they face the maximum penalty for larceny, however, they are unlikely to get sentenced that amount, depending on several factors (previous convictions, etc, etc).

EDIT: larceny, not robbery.

He was reporting crimes of an army that STILL was in Iraq and continued to do those crimes!