Paul in January: Say, that Bradley Manning is a patriotic, heroic kind of guy, isn’t he?

posted at 2:05 pm on December 21, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

This clip has been making the rounds last night and today, but it’s not new — it’s actually from a clip featured by Wikileaks, for obvious reasons, last January. Still, it’s not as if the parameters of the Bradley Manning case have changed significantly in the last eleven months, or at least not in any way that mitigates Manning’s alleged crimes. The enlisted soldier transmitted a vast trove of classified government communications, primarily diplomatic cables but also some internal military information, and sent it to Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks. Jazz Shaw has a good update on the case on the front page today, for those who haven’t followed it closely. Bear in mind that Ron Paul wants to become Commander in Chief, which raises all sorts of questions about how a President Paul would safeguard classified information:

So if we have an American citizen, and he’s willing to take it, uh, take the consequences and practice civil disobedience, say “This is what our government’s doing!” Should he be locked up and in prison? Or should we, you know, see him as a political hero? Maybe he is a true patriot who reveals what’s going on in government.

We’ve heard that a lot from Manning’s apologists, that he’s a true hero and not a criminal, but this is absurd on many levels.  First, the disclosures didn’t pertain to some objectionable course of action that Manning couldn’t abide; he released everything he could grab to Assange and Wikileaks regardless of the topic involved.  There was no discrimination at all.  That’s not the profile of a whistleblower, but it does fit the profile of someone harboring a grudge, and wanting to lash out only to inflict damage.

Next, as anyone who has held a clearance can attest — and I’ve held a few myself — a clearance doesn’t give one the right to declassify information.  Anyone who has a clearance knows exactly what consequences will follow from exposing classified material, regardless of the reasons for the disclosure.  Furthermore, as anyone who has held a clearance also knows, processes exist to communicate violations of the law or ethics discovered in classified material.  Those processes include using your own chain of command, contacting an Inspector General’s office — or even contacting a member of Congress, like Ron Paul himself.   The options most certainly do not include passing classified material to journalists, American, Australian, or otherwise.  There is no evidence at all that Manning ever tried any other option — because Manning is nothing more than a disgruntled nut, not a whistleblower of any kind.

Besides, if Paul thinks Manning was “willing to take the consequences,” why not just let him?  The consequences of deliberately stealing and exposing classified material are a long prison sentence and a pretty miserable life.  That’s because exposing classified material isn’t “civil disobedience.”  It’s theft and espionage, a difference one would presume that a Congressman and a man who wants to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate would know.

Finally, consider the fact that the responsibility for protecting classified material lies with the executive branch — up to and including the President.  Paul’s declaration that we should be celebrating a man who deliberately exposed that material because of the supposed eeevil done by the American government sounds like a man who’s more interested in his own paranoid fantasies than he is in conducting the duties of the Commander in Chief.  The clip may be a year old, but there’s no reason to think that Paul has gotten a year wiser.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7

You’re right, you wouldn’t want any competition from government, would you? Exactly what I would expect from one of Manning’s ex-lovers.

Lighthorse on December 21, 2011 at 11:22 PM

That’s all you have? I’m an ex-lover of Manning? Do you have anything to say about the military brass mounting 8 year old boys in Southeast Asia? Or is that an unfair observation? Don’t tell me I’m being un-American for despising pedophile freaks.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 11:25 PM

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 11:17 PM
Does that take into account the coal, oil, and natural gas in North America, South America, the Gulf, and off of the coast of the Americas? 75% is an outrageous lie, if you know what you’re talking about, and if you don’t, well it proves you are what JohnTant claims, a robotic mouthpiece, OUCH!

Lighthorse on December 21, 2011 at 11:43 PM

Treason in who’s eyes? Treason is a very subjective term.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Treason is very carefully defined in the US Code. There’s nothing “subjective” about it – and anyone who believes there is, is a fool and a moron. Or trying to make excuses for ronpaul’s anti-Americanism.

Solaratov on December 21, 2011 at 11:44 PM

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 11:25 PM
No, opposing pedophile freaks is very American, unless you only do so because they are competing for your personal supply.

Lighthorse on December 21, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Treason is very carefully defined in the US Code. There’s nothing “subjective” about it – and anyone who believes there is, is a fool and a moron. Or trying to make excuses for ronpaul’s anti-Americanism.

Solaratov on December 21, 2011 at 11:44 PM

“Treason” is not only carefully defined in the US Code, but it is the only crime defined in the very text of the constitution itself.

gryphon202 on December 21, 2011 at 11:57 PM

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 11:17 PM
Does that take into account the coal, oil, and natural gas in North America, South America, the Gulf, and off of the coast of the Americas? 75% is an outrageous lie, if you know what you’re talking about, and if you don’t, well it proves you are what JohnTant claims, a robotic mouthpiece, OUCH!

Lighthorse on December 21, 2011 at 11:43 PM

Note he said “known” energy resources and he wrote this book 13 years ago. I’m not even sure if this includes the trillion dollars of rare earth minerals (critical in building microchips and other computer based architecture) believed to be hidden beneath the mountains of Afghanistan. Remember this man Brzezinski crafted the policy which dragged the Soviets into Afghanistan. He was Jimmy’s Carter foreign policy consigliere so to speak. He also is very much a mentor to one Barack Hussein Obama going back to his Columbia days.

Think for a second? Why don’t they want America resource independent? We have plenty of oil shale and oil in the Dakotas/Montana and let’s not even get started on the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge. Why did they nearly drive all our offshore oil rigs out of the Gulf and to Brazil?

If you have read the writings of these global elites like Brzezinski they are adamant that in their worldview that no country can be independent from the others. In their twisted view, one region shall be de facto area for unskilled manufacturing (Asia), one for finance & professional services, etc. and so and so forth in an interconnected web. They are diametrically opposed to strong, independent country with it’s own industrial capacity and resources since it is less susceptible to their whims and overtures.I’ve included another disturbing statement from Brzezinski below in which he is whimsically ruminating about the future of the United States and it’s role in foreign affairs:

“Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.” (p.35)

These are some seriously deluded people with exclusive access to the White House/Pentagon/Congress and to underestimate them is the height of foolishness.

Pitchforker on December 22, 2011 at 12:05 AM

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 11:25 PM
No, opposing pedophile freaks is very American, unless you only do so because they are competing for your personal supply.

Lighthorse on December 21, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Good. At least, we agree on something. We both hate Kinsey.

Pitchforker on December 22, 2011 at 12:30 AM

Finally, consider the fact that the responsibility for protecting classified material lies with the executive branch — up to and including the President.  Paul’s declaration that we should be celebrating a man who deliberately exposed that material because of the supposed eeevil done by the American government sounds like a man who’s more interested in his own paranoid fantasies than he is in conducting the duties of the Commander in Chief. 

Well there’s that and then there’s the fact that he claimed he did this cuz he had just broken up with his boyfriend.

DSchoen on December 22, 2011 at 6:12 AM

Is Bradley Manning asking himself “WWLGGD”?

crankybutt on December 23, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7