HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Bradley Manning's prosecu...

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 06:24 PM

Bradley Manning's prosecutor MUST prove he intended to "aid the enemy".

This is great news, or seems so on the face of it. This sounds like a VERY
tall order for the prosecutor to PROVE what was or wasn't going on in
Manning's mind in the first place, much less prove that Manning INTENDED
to be helping some "enemy" of USA's over-reaching Imperialistic Military and
Intelligence Forces, whoever the fuck that might be.

Isn't this great news for Bradley Manning's chances at the end of the day to
be found "not guilty"?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/bradley-manning-judge-prosecutors-must-prove-he-knew-he-was-aiding-the-enemy/2013/01/16/934a8568-6018-11e2-a389-ee565c81c565_story.html

10 replies, 644 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bradley Manning's prosecutor MUST prove he intended to "aid the enemy". (Original post)
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 OP
Recursion Jan 2013 #1
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #2
Recursion Jan 2013 #3
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #4
Recursion Jan 2013 #5
99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #6
DevonRex Jan 2013 #7
madokie Jan 2013 #8
Recursion Jan 2013 #10
agentS Jan 2013 #9

Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 06:28 PM

1. Mens rea is a part of most crimes

And that's a pretty weird spin on the judge granting what the prosecution was asking for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 06:36 PM

2. Please show me where in this article, or elsewhere, that "prosecution was asking for" this?

I re-read the OP article and I didn't see that anywhere.

could you please back up your statements with a link or
quote/source or something credible?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 06:51 PM

3. Because this was a set of rulings

The important one being that Manning cannot present evidence of motive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 06:58 PM

4. Never-the-less, evidence of motive is a separate issue from needing to prove "aiding the enemy"

And speaking of evidence, you still are just making assertions without anything to back them up.

You may be correct, and I'm open to learning more, or looking at my own blind spot (if there
really is one); but I don't just take a random person's word for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:00 PM

5. That's fair

I'm on my iPhone so it's not really easy to link; obviously, use your own judgement.

And as a caveat I'm not a fan of Manning. My fiancée wrote some of the cables he leaked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:06 PM

6. Good to know

.. your perspective. thanks.

feel free to get back to me later, once you're on your 'puter.

peace out. ~99th

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:23 PM

7. Sorry. He can try to show he didn't know he was indirectly helping the enemy by

giving the documents to WikiLeaks, which then were found on Osama Bin Laden's computer (by the Navy SEALS).

He can try. The facts speak for themselves in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:26 PM

8. I have a feeling that Manning will walk

and they know that and thats why they treated him so badly before the trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:36 PM

10. I'm afraid I agree

The government has hopelessly compromised an otherwise straightforward case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:34 PM

9. It's a difficult case for the prosecutor, but winnable.

It won't be a death penalty case, but he will see some form of punishment. Probably 1 more year plus time served.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread