New Testingstan

The Spartan wrote:You're nothing.
You're a nobody.
You're worthless.

Along those lines?

Heisenberg was not only a pre-eminent physicist whom even the Nazis realised they were better off with than without, however "Jewish" his theory might be in the eyes of Stark and Lenard, but Heisenberg had, as a young boy, attended school with SS chief Heinrich Himmler. In a historic moment, Heisenberg's mother rang Himmler's mother and asked her if she would please tell the SS to give "Werner" a break. After beginning a full character evaluation, which Heisenberg both instigated and passed, Himmler forbade further attack on the physicist. Heisenberg would later employ his "Jewish physics," in the German project to develop nuclear fission for the purposes of nuclear weapons or nuclear energy use.

We do know — from our own private conversations with friends and family members — that prior to his incarceration, Manning had not asked people to refer to him with a female pronoun.
[...]

From the earliest stages, the Bradley Manning Support Network has sought to honor Manning’s choices. Early in the campaign, we reached out to Manning’s aunt and lawyer and asked what name he preferred we use in our advocacy. They got back to us to say that “Brad” or “Bradley” would be fine.

[...]

Notably, [Bradley Manning] didn’t ask us to start referring to him as Breanna. Advocates for Manning have an obligation to respect his agency and use the pronoun he had preferred prior to his arrest. None of us has the right to switch pronouns for Manning unless he tells us otherwise.

Infinity Biscuit wrote:The take I read on Manning and her personal life was that she didn't fear death as a consequence for being caught doing what she did, but rather having her exposed to the world as "a man" in the world's eye.

That said I'm surprised it's actually going to trial. Wasn't the whole setup basically permanent detention without trial or am I misremembering?

Jung wrote:I heard one of the things they're trying to get Manning on is by leaking stuff to the media and therefore the public he allowed the enemy to know it

Is this true?

Because if so that's some Orwellian shit there

The charges, filed Tuesday but not disclosed until Wednesday, are one count of aiding the enemy, five counts of theft of public property or records, two counts of computer fraud, eight counts of transmitting defense information in violation of the Espionage Act, and one count of wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the internet knowing it would be accessible to the enemy. The aiding-the-enemy charge is a capital offense, potentially carrying the death penalty. Five additional charges are for violating Army computer-security regulations.

Jung wrote:What hits me is the implied notion that I'm supposed to just trust our Men On The Wall with what is PROPER FOR ME TO KNOW

And attempting to circumvent that is directly equivalent to helping the enemy

Cause it's not like they might be way bigger threats to AMURRICAN LIBERTY than Al Quaeda could ever be

Darksi4190 wrote:I've never actually read the Wikileaks cables. Is there any information in them that might be of use to our actual enemies, I.E. Al Quaeda and other terrorist groups? I mean if Manning was publishing the locations and travel routes of SEAL Teams and such, then yeah I understand going after her for treason. But from my understanding, it was just a bunch of diplomatic information.

I know some government officials have come forward and said that people (mostly Afghan and Iraqi informants) have died as a result of the Wikileaks release, but i've never seen that corroborated by a third-party so i'm taking it with a grain of salt.