IMO, an act of provocation is something a leader of a country can do. Who is this preacher? Who does he represent? Answer: Nobody but himself. Protesting America because the guy happens to be American is just, well, stupid. I find it possible if not probable that stOx keeps copies of the bible and various other holy books around his house for use as toilet paper. What type of moron would protest Britain based on such behavior?
I guess the media should avoid giving coverage to such things. It only fans the flames. I agree the people who kill for religion are plain dumb...but then the ones who are enlightened should use better judgment when they know that such dumbers still exist on this planet. Had this been a private matter, no one would have known and bothered.
There is no doubt the event was a provocation of one group against another - the insult to the extent to extract a vociferous response being the objective.
For those supporting the preachers right to say what he wants and stuff the consequences whilst in another breath arguing WikiLeaks will cause the deaths of 2,000 people for reporting the truth, can you please explain the hypocrisy? [video=youtube;SNrPaz_NC7k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNrPaz_NC7k[/video]
Apparently he's always got a few women on the side...maybe that's how he gets them! Though my question, which I note you didn't answer, was about WikiLeaks.
The preacher is a private citizen who is free to express himself. He can burn the Koran, the Bible, or a flag - as long as the Koran, Bible, or Flag is his property and belongs to him. Private Manning is a private in the US Army. When he volunteered to join the Army, he agreed to sign a document that restricted how he expressed himself, saying that he would not release CLASSIFIED information - information that is not his property and does not belong to him. Assange released information that was not his property and did not belong to him. Manning and Assange are free to release information that belongs to them, but they cannot steal it from others. Understand? Information is property and can be owned. That is why governments classify information. That is why governments issue patents and copyrights and have laws on the protection of contracts. Ask yourself, how would you feel if someone publicly released the server-side code from your website? Would you consider that freedom of speech? Or would you sue their ass?
Manning might have settled for the initial combat disclosure that was the subject of his objection however once the decision is made, any American irregardless their employment has a right to bring criminal / objectionable activity to public attention. The same for the disclosure of the Pentagon Papers during VN that likewise was not a declared war but one of persuasion that was not the persuasion of the objectors. Bring the case to trial as it will eventually be dismissed.
Dismissed? Not happening. He'll be convicted and imprisoned. Let me know if you'd care to make a wager on that. If you don't want to put your money where your mouth is, we can wager something fun... like the loser has to change their sig here to "I am a total moron" for a year.
To be quite honest this is rediculous , Just because if im right the pastor is christian it doesnt give him to the right to burn over religions holy book, it doesnt give him any extra power above anybody else. He's just doing it for the sake of it. Yes he's claiming theyre all islamic extremists but not all of them are, I know a few muslim's who are very nice people , but unfortunatly there are a few who take things to far. Im not religious but to be honest this is just extreme,
I'm NOT defending the action, in my book the guy's not quite as appealing or intelligent as something you'd scrape off the bottom of your shoe... but from a simple perspective of "rights", of course he has the right. He lives in the US, and as long as it's theirs... he can burn korans, muslims can burn bibles, communists can burn Mein Kampf, radical feminists can burn Playboys, the GOP can burn Al Gore's global warming book, and Democrats can burn George Bush's biography, etc.... Unless they do enough of it to violate the local fire safety ordinances they have the technical "right"... all of them. That still doesnt make it a smart thing to do, or a polite thing to do, or a good idea, or even any less asinine, but it doesn't require any additional rights. We don't have a law against being a knuckle-dragging asshole.
Alright then, thye may have a right, but if they do it then there just straight down stupid and are requesting some hatrid from a worldwide audience
Manning has weathered the worst of the military incarceration. If it were the initial video only he would have been freed for the time served.
There is no need to get drunk over Manning's incarceration, r. The militaries grip has loosened and Manning has indeed weathered the storm. The Iraqi incursion and the event of the initial released tape are subjects of similar relevance the trial will more than accommodate. An acquittal would be the best balance between the two and but for the additional released information would be the proper verdict.
Ummm... He stole a few hundred thousand communiques besides that one tape. If you think he's weathered the storm youre dreaming. This is just a transfer to a different facility until the trial. He'll be in a penitentiary for many years after convicted. To get acquitted he wouldn't have to prove he stole classified docs and transferred them to a foreign national for a really really good reason... He'd have to prove he didn't do it... And he's already admitted he did. Again, if you think I'm wrong, I'm still open for a wager. Just let me know.
That is the point, the admission is his defense for acquittal on grounds of objection to the criminal behavior of the combatants against defenseless civilians. I really do not know what you think or frankly care in regards to even the legitimacy of the Iraqi war. Manning was goated by Wikileaks in providing the additional information than the original tape, to bad but the heart of the issue remains the objection against combatants firing on civilians and the militaries acquiescence to the event.