Posted on 01/02/2012 8:14:12 AM PST by jmaroneps37
Contrary to what Ron Paul says, Bradley Manning is neither a hero nor a patriot. He is a traitor who has placed our fighting men and women in great danger. He is also deeply disaffected and confused homosexual who has serious misogynistic tendencies. He can’t stand women. The Army’s folder of reports about his conduct proves it.
A source quoted in militarycorruption.com who has attended his treason trial in Fort Meade Maryland, says Manning thinks of himself as a woman in a man’s body, and even created his own female persona he calls Breanna Manning.
Moreover he is given to fits of hysteria and is prone to violence toward female supervisors. The official records include a description of Manning having punched his female supervisor in the face.
In spite of his flighty and unacceptable conduct the army’s poster boy for ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was put in charge of 700,000 sensitive and secret files pertaining to our military’s plans in Afghanistan and other theaters of war. How did this happen?
Who looked at this maladjusted little twerp and said, “Oh boy THIS is guy America should trust her secrets to!”?
During the time Manning was in charge of America’s secrets, he sent up one red flag after another. Jihrleah Showman the female supervisor Manning punched recognized he was unstable and therefore untrustworthy early in their professional relationship.
She has testified to specifically explaining what she was seeing in Manning’s irrational conduct to her superior Sgt. First Class Paul Adkins and Adkins’ seeming indifference to her concerns. Now Adkins has taken the 5th Amendment when questioned under oath about why he left Manning in place with his hands on our future.
These facts raise several questions about Adkins and the unit Manning was working in…
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
We had two college interns two summers ago at work that got temporary SECRET clearances in a week.
Being an off-base contractor we don’t have SIPRNET, though.
I was just pointing out that those restrictions for a TSC were lifted way before DADT. I am NOT saying I approve, I was just pointing the trend started some time ago. Again I am not excusing what happened, stupid decisions have consequences the consequences may not be immediate, but they eventually come, and it’s seems if those consequences are long in coming they are more severe.
Really? How do you know what accesses he needed to do his job?
You’re conflating what you think he worked at with what you think he should do with how you think the organization should be run.
None of which is anything but an impression.
This has nothing to do with a former CINC. We’ve become the German army that Hogan’s heroes made famous.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPk5mCYKCtU
Give us a good laugh, a beer, and a ball game. We’re full of it.
None of the Walker family, Ames, or Hansen were gay, and each did infinitely more damage to the US than Manning did.
The whole point of the homosexual clearance ban was that they were vulnerable to blackmail; if they can be openly gay in the military or intelligence services, and it’s generally accepted in society, then the blackmail issue goes away.
Overwhelmingly the reasons people become traitors are 1) Ego and 2) Money.
“This has nothing to do with a former CINC.”
Yes it does. The previous posts and links explain why.
I work for a large company that is technical in nature. There are huge amounts of data that I could easily obtain just by nature of the fact that it is a fairly non-trivial task to properly restrict access to information and still make it possible for people to do their jobs and be productive. The caveats are is that I’m not saying I have access to *everything* - just that I have access to an enormous amount. Secondly private industry and the military are obviously not the same thing and the security requirements are obviously different - but still at heart we’re still dealing with large organizations, with IT managers, with standard IT tools so I would expect more than just a little commonality.
Basically, it’s a hard problem to solve - especially when most of the top-secret policies and procedures were likely developed back in the George Smiley days of manila folders and those all-knowing file clerks in those novels. Now that everything is on an intranet with potentially unlimited copies of the same data - those policies and procedures probably don’t translate very well.
SIPRNet... I consider SIPRNet to be less secure than a highly encrypted email sent via NIPRNet.
Our retarded officers have ensured *THAT*.
Frankly speaking, no officer should EVER have their hands in any part of the intel production cycle. They simply can’t be trusted to protect it. For they will pass it on if their superiors (without clearances) ask.
Whereas enlisted tend not to. As enlisted live for the opportunity to tell their officers to ‘eff off’, so to speak.
It's also possible that there were several "common" accounts available to use - like being able to log into a server with root access without disclosing your identity. One project I did for a commercial client was to get rid of this and require people to first log in as themselves, then "su" to an account that granted them the privileges needed. This ensures an audit trail. I saw an instance in a company once where a really bad programmer somehow got ahold of the root account. She logged in her work as root (the root account doesn't leave the same kind of access trail in the logs). I assume she knew that, which was why she used root - to hide which work was hers. After I initiated my changes, she remarkably decided to quit.
Many organizations these days - public and private - are getting rid of these "common" accounts and requiring that each and every person log in to the system as themselves. But they're still around in some places, and it's a big security hole.
In the middle of two wars?!? Are you Rumsfeld?
I don't agree! As a minimum what Manning did was equivalent, primarily because of the breadth of what he released, and in comparing him to Ames and Hansen, Manning might be worse. No American lives lost through Ames and Hansen, the lives lost there were primarily Russian. Manning's release spiked rioting and combat activity in Afghanistan & Iraq with an accompanying increase in casualties. It also revealed “backroom deals” that are necessary to chase terrorists internationally that may or may not cost American lives in the future. It also revealed private activity, ideas and assessments of countries and leaders that are necessary for “statecraft” to take place this may cost us “lives” in the future. Secrecy of this sort has been so since the rise of competing or even cooperating “organized societies”. Even George Washington noted the need to secrecy both in military, government & diplomatic activity and correspondences. Anyone who denies this as a very selective reading of history. Another thing to remember we still don't know the extent of Manning's damage, since WikiLeaks has not released the whole package. Assauge claims he has a “doomsday release” ready to go if something happens to him. Maybe nothing but bravado, but we don't know!
Hansen and Ames were much worse than Manning. For one thing the data that Manning leaked was no higher than at a SECRET classification. The reason the media and the Administration have gone ape is that the info is rather embarrassing particularly with regards to those relating to diplomatic activity. Hansen and Ames on the other hand gave the USSR some of our most precious secrets and, if WW III had occurred, would have caused hundreds of thousands of casualties and the possible loss of the war.
“... Manning leaked was no higher than at a SECRET classification...”
Not true!
How so?
Yes. It’s true.
“The 251,287 cables, first acquired by WikiLeaks, were provided to The Times by an intermediary on the condition of anonymity. Many are unclassified, and none are marked “top secret,” the government’s most secure communications status.But some 11,000 are classified “secret,” 9,000 are labeled “noforn,” shorthand for material considered too delicate to be shared with any foreign government, and 4,000 are designated both secret and noforn.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?pagewanted=1
Groan. I wish they had a reporter who knew something about classification markers. NOFORN is not a classification, it's a handling caveat, similar to FOUO (For Official Use Only). You can't have a document labeled NOFORN without a classification marking (e.g., TS//NOFORN; SECRET//NOFORN), so to say 9,000 are labeled NOFORN (implying that it's the only marking) is stupid if not misleading.
Well it IS the New York Times lol.
Heh. Well, there *is* that...
well I guess if you are going to use the New York Times as your authority, then I it must be true!
The lack of any Manning related leaks higher than SECRET is established fact. If you have a problem with the New York Times, by all means visit the BBC, the Washington Post, Fox News or any other media outlet that reported on the subject. Meanwhile where are YOUR link’s that prove otherwise??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.