HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » WikiLeaks: Bradley Mannin...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:23 AM

WikiLeaks: Bradley Manning's motives are no defence, judge rules

Source: The Telegraph

A US military judge ruled Wednesday that Bradley Manning's motive for allegedly leaking a huge cache of secret files to WikiLeaks is no defence against the long list of charges he faces.

...

Manning's lawyers had argued that evidence should be heard at trial about why the soldier chose to illicitly transmit the confidential documents to WikiLeaks, but the request was largely thrown out.

In what amounts to a victory for prosecutors, Colonel Denise Lind, the judge, said Manning's motive was not a valid defence.

The judge ruled that that Manning's motive could only be examined to argue that he did not "knowingly aid the enemy," chiefly Al-Qaeda, by uploading and releasing the files.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/9807579/WikiLeaks-Bradley-Mannings-motives-are-no-defence-judge-rules.html



As a reminder, here is his charge sheet:

http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/releases/charge-sheet-html

He's charged with:
* leaking the gunship video
* leaking the State Department cables
* leaking the powerpoints of Iraq and Afghanistan status briefings
* Hacking SIPRnet (the allegedly secure network the DoD uses)

This is not about Guantanamo (somebody else leaked that) or torture.

176 replies, 15919 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 176 replies Author Time Post
Reply WikiLeaks: Bradley Manning's motives are no defence, judge rules (Original post)
Recursion Jan 2013 OP
Ash_F Jan 2013 #1
Recursion Jan 2013 #4
Ash_F Jan 2013 #5
naaman fletcher Jan 2013 #6
Ash_F Jan 2013 #9
naaman fletcher Jan 2013 #11
Ash_F Jan 2013 #13
Recursion Jan 2013 #14
Ash_F Jan 2013 #16
msanthrope Jan 2013 #28
Ash_F Jan 2013 #58
msanthrope Jan 2013 #86
jberryhill Mar 2013 #155
Ash_F Mar 2013 #157
jberryhill Mar 2013 #161
stevenleser Mar 2013 #163
jberryhill Mar 2013 #164
Ash_F Mar 2013 #165
jberryhill Mar 2013 #167
Ash_F Mar 2013 #168
Recursion Jan 2013 #7
Ash_F Jan 2013 #8
Recursion Jan 2013 #10
Ash_F Jan 2013 #15
cstanleytech Jan 2013 #23
msanthrope Jan 2013 #29
Ash_F Jan 2013 #59
cstanleytech Jan 2013 #65
Ash_F Jan 2013 #66
cstanleytech Jan 2013 #68
Ash_F Jan 2013 #74
cstanleytech Jan 2013 #81
stevenleser Mar 2013 #140
Ash_F Mar 2013 #144
stevenleser Mar 2013 #145
Ash_F Mar 2013 #146
stevenleser Mar 2013 #147
Ash_F Mar 2013 #148
stevenleser Mar 2013 #149
Ash_F Mar 2013 #150
stevenleser Mar 2013 #151
Ash_F Mar 2013 #152
stevenleser Mar 2013 #153
Ash_F Mar 2013 #156
stevenleser Mar 2013 #158
Ash_F Mar 2013 #159
stevenleser Mar 2013 #162
Ash_F Mar 2013 #166
stevenleser Mar 2013 #170
Ash_F Mar 2013 #173
stevenleser Mar 2013 #174
BainsBane Jan 2013 #111
randome Jan 2013 #70
Ash_F Jan 2013 #75
randome Jan 2013 #82
hack89 Jan 2013 #91
Ash_F Jan 2013 #101
Ken Burch Mar 2013 #137
BainsBane Jan 2013 #99
Ash_F Jan 2013 #100
BainsBane Jan 2013 #104
Ash_F Jan 2013 #105
BainsBane Jan 2013 #108
Ash_F Jan 2013 #114
BainsBane Jan 2013 #110
Ash_F Jan 2013 #113
BainsBane Jan 2013 #116
Ash_F Jan 2013 #123
BainsBane Jan 2013 #125
Ash_F Jan 2013 #130
stevenleser Mar 2013 #142
TeamPooka Jan 2013 #109
Ash_F Jan 2013 #115
msanthrope Jan 2013 #119
BainsBane Jan 2013 #120
Ash_F Jan 2013 #124
BainsBane Jan 2013 #126
Ash_F Jan 2013 #131
BainsBane Mar 2013 #132
Ash_F Mar 2013 #135
msanthrope Jan 2013 #128
jeff47 Mar 2013 #133
Ash_F Mar 2013 #136
Ash_F Mar 2013 #138
jeff47 Mar 2013 #139
msongs Jan 2013 #2
Hissyspit Jan 2013 #3
stevenleser Mar 2013 #141
Deep13 Jan 2013 #12
go west young man Jan 2013 #17
railsback Jan 2013 #18
snot Jan 2013 #19
Recursion Jan 2013 #21
snot Jan 2013 #121
Recursion Jan 2013 #122
snot Jan 2013 #129
jberryhill Mar 2013 #169
freshwest Jan 2013 #20
railsback Jan 2013 #56
freshwest Jan 2013 #57
AntiFascist Jan 2013 #106
jberryhill Jan 2013 #102
freshwest Jan 2013 #107
Sunlei Jan 2013 #22
redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #24
newfie11 Jan 2013 #25
Recursion Jan 2013 #39
freshwest Jan 2013 #79
newfie11 Jan 2013 #83
randome Jan 2013 #84
randome Jan 2013 #26
redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #27
msanthrope Jan 2013 #30
randome Jan 2013 #31
msanthrope Jan 2013 #32
CE5 Jan 2013 #33
randome Jan 2013 #34
redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #36
randome Jan 2013 #37
Recursion Jan 2013 #41
Recursion Jan 2013 #40
redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #43
Recursion Jan 2013 #45
redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #46
randome Jan 2013 #48
graham4anything Jan 2013 #76
redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #77
redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #35
Recursion Jan 2013 #38
redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #42
Recursion Jan 2013 #44
redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #47
cstanleytech Jan 2013 #52
redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #53
cstanleytech Jan 2013 #55
msanthrope Jan 2013 #49
redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #50
msanthrope Jan 2013 #51
redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #54
jberryhill Mar 2013 #154
Ash_F Jan 2013 #60
randome Jan 2013 #61
Ash_F Jan 2013 #62
4Q2u2 Jan 2013 #63
Ash_F Jan 2013 #64
4Q2u2 Jan 2013 #67
Ash_F Jan 2013 #73
4Q2u2 Jan 2013 #80
Ash_F Jan 2013 #92
4Q2u2 Jan 2013 #93
Ash_F Jan 2013 #94
4Q2u2 Jan 2013 #95
Ash_F Jan 2013 #96
newfie11 Jan 2013 #85
Bodhi BloodWave Jan 2013 #87
redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #88
Bodhi BloodWave Jan 2013 #89
redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #90
Bodhi BloodWave Jan 2013 #97
redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #98
jberryhill Jan 2013 #103
redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #112
jberryhill Jan 2013 #117
I love weed Jan 2013 #69
freshwest Jan 2013 #78
jeff47 Mar 2013 #134
24601 Jan 2013 #71
Recursion Jan 2013 #72
Supply Side Jesus Jan 2013 #118
wordpix Mar 2013 #176
SWTORFanatic Jan 2013 #127
stevenleser Mar 2013 #143
JDPriestly Mar 2013 #160
stevenleser Mar 2013 #171
JDPriestly Mar 2013 #172
wordpix Mar 2013 #175

Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:28 AM

1. How is this not like the Pentagon Papers?

I await the usual blathering from DU's resident right wing trolls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:29 AM

4. The Pentagon Papers were a single high-level study leaked by a civilian to the NYT

The State Department cables were several gigabytes of information Manning knew nothing about that he leaked to bittorrent.

I'm not seeing much similarity, personally, other than the act of leaking classified information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:33 AM

5. Look at the summary of the material he is being charged on

And tell me how that is not basically the same as the pentagon papers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:36 AM

6. To Explain:

 

The guys who leaked the Pentagon Papers were not members of the military and not subject to military justice. Manning is. This is a military court.

That's the difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:45 AM

9. Everyone is entitled to justice.

If you can't get it in military court then that must change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:50 AM

11. look, I'm 100% on manning's side,

 

but I am hard pressed to believe that the military would ever make it ok to use your position to download whatever secret material you want and give it away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:03 AM

13. Yes but, there are mitigating circumstances and there is the spirit of the law.

The nature of the material that was leaked is extremely mitigating. It needed to be leaked. What Bradley has already endured is far beyond what is just.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:11 AM

14. No dice. He would have had to have known what he was leaking

And he has said he didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:14 AM

16. See post 15. I beg to differ. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 06:58 AM

28. Yes--and he can bring up the mitigating circumstances at sentencing. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:49 PM

58. He should not have been held for this long PERIOD

That alone is gross mismanagement of justice.

The other day a Judge ruled that the prosecution must prove that he knowingly aided the enemy, which they are not going to be able to do, so he should be acquitted. Unfortunately, the jury will consist of officers, likely brainwashed with the notion of military fraternity above all else. A fraternity in which Manning is no longer welcome, because he chose to do what is right and speak out against it. I doubt he will receive fair judgement from them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #58)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 08:58 AM

86. Manning opted for no jury. Further, most of the trial delay has been due to the defense, which is a

smart strategy by them, since Manning is currently in med sec. Once he is convicted, he goes to max sec. So, it's to the defense's advantage to delay trial as much as possible.

Edited to add--the judge ruled that the prosecution must prove an intent standard on a single charge that frankly, isn't a high bar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #9)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 11:44 PM

155. And what should happen if the US military begins operating against the civilian US government

The Department of State is part of the civilian government.

What I find interesting about the Ellsberg comparison is that he was a civilian employee of the DoD who released military information. The Manning situation is the polar opposite of that dynamic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #155)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 11:57 PM

157. State Department is very intertwined with military in its functionality.

The Dyncorp child sex slave scandal, for example, was covered up by a State Department Employee and classified by another. Yet Manning had legitimate access to that data as a military personnel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #157)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 04:19 AM

161. Do you want to address the question or not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #161)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 10:57 AM

163. Good luck with that. That person loves their logical fallacies, as well as moving the goalposts and

changing the topic in midstream.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #163)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 11:09 AM

164. I suppose


But when it is a general who decides to go after the State Department instead of a private, I wonder if a military coup has the same sort of support.

Or is it just a question of rank?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #161)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 03:12 PM

165. I did

The hypothetical scenario of a coup in the US government is silly. That was my answer. Like I said, the State Department and the Military are very close. What if it did happen? What does it matter to this story? It's off-topic.

Perhaps I misunderstood your question; after looking at your other post....

If a general had chosen to uncover the same crimes, I think he would have received better treatment from the military and more media support. Brass has more respect from the RW bobbleheads, though it is often unwarranted. As long as they don't get in an embarrassing sex scandal. They fawned over Petraeus before that happened.

Manning was not "going after" the State Department nor staging a coup. Hope you are not comparing that to what he did. He found horrible crimes, that the were left uncorrected by those who should have corrected it, and he exposed them so that the public can see these criminals for who they are. But some here seem to think they should have been left in secret and un-prosecuted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #165)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 04:10 PM

167. It's not a "hypothetical coup"

I do not know any other term for a member or members of the military deciding on their own prerogative to go after a civilian agency of the government nor do I believe we should laud that sort of thing.

Was he a charter member of the "Oath Keepers" or something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #167)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 04:14 PM

168. He exposes rape and murder and you accuse him of starting a coup

Wow ok, we are done.

PS - DU 2013

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:36 AM

7. I don't think you understand what a State Department cable is

I'll grant that the Iraq / Afghanistan briefings are fairly similar, and I'm even willing to call WikiLeaks the rough equivalent of the NYT 40 years ago. But State Department cables name contancts in dissident groups and sympathetic contacts in governments. And Manning didn't even bother to read them. I also don't think hacking SIPRnet is OK. He's also in the military, which Ellsberg was not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:44 AM

8. I know exactly what a State Department Cable is defined as

I read many of the cables leaked by Manning. Including one where a US diplo attempted to sweep under the rug an investigation of child sex trafficking by US contractors.

Splitting hairs on how the data is classified is completely pointless to this discussion, and to the question of justice. It's the same type of info...same type of crimes...just a different war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:50 AM

10. If you read that you read more of it than Manning did (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:13 AM

15. Citation for this claim?

"hypothetical question: if you had free reign over classified networks for long periods of time ... say, 8–9 months ... and you saw incredible things, awful things ... things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC ... what would you do?"

"say ... a database of half a million events during the iraq war ... from 2004 to 2009 ... with reports, date time groups, lat-lon locations, casualty figures ...? or 260,000 state department cables from embassies and consulates all over the world, explaining how the first world exploits the third, in detail, from an internal perspective?"

"and ... its important that it gets out ... i feel, for some bizarre reason

it might actually change something"

- Bradley Manning(allegedly)


Sounds to me like he did read at least as many of them as I have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:22 AM

23. Didnt Manning have the legal option though to report that

to inspector general and or to a member of congress?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 06:58 AM

29. The legal duty in fact. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:51 PM

59. Yes, which is why it was right to keep him in solitary for years.

^^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #59)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 06:50 PM

65. Actually I suspect the whole solitary thing has more to do with him

releasing classified intel illegally or atleast the allegation that he did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #65)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 06:54 PM

66. It is ridiculous that pedophilia and rape apologia has a place on DU.

When authority fails to do its job then decent people need to step up and do what is right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #66)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:52 PM

68. To bad though the case isnt about him just leaking that though because

if it was just that then he probably would not even have been charged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #68)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:07 AM

74. That alone makes him a hero and worthy of a full pardon.

The military has had years to put together a case that he knowingly aided the enemy and they've got nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #74)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:21 AM

81. If this was only an issue of him being charged with leaking

the intel on that because he felt it needed to be pursued by the proper authorities rather than covered up then yes I agree with you but alot more documents were leaked that had nothing whatsoever to do with that.
I get why you are defending him though, dont get me wrong I just happen to believe that the law is the law if he broke it then he should be in prison just like Cheney and Bush should be if they broke it which I believe they probably did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #74)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 07:56 PM

140. That is like claiming if I go outside with an uzi and indiscriminantly mow down 5000 people that I

am a hero if one of them turns out to be a serial killer.

He released thousands of classified documents. By chance, one or two dozen or so contain something resembling wrongdoing.

That is not a hero.

He also had the option and duty to report any wrongdoing up the chain and to the inspector general of the army and to a member of congress. He chose not to do that.

He instead went to the press, not because he wanted the wrongdoing to stop, but because he wanted publicity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #140)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 01:09 PM

144. Read some of the info in this thread. You don't know what you are talking about. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #144)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 03:52 PM

145. I know a lot more than you. I've read the details and am former military. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #145)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 06:58 PM

146. And yet you chose to defend the cover-up of child sex trafficking

And Besmirch the good deeds of a military man who was doing his job

Can you explain yourself?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #146)

Sun Mar 3, 2013, 07:19 PM

147. No, that is your straw man. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #147)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 08:32 PM

148. Your argument is the straw man.

There has been no evidence whatsoever that anyone was harmed over the info Manning outed. None.


The best argument I have seen is: "People might get angry about these leaks and retaliate"

No shit? If you do bad things, like rape women and children, people will be mad at you when they find out. So what? You should be able to keep it a secret and avoid prosecution?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #148)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 11:15 PM

149. You do not know what a straw man is. You should learn. Using logical fallacies like you do

automatically invalidates your arguments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #149)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 11:19 PM

150. Why don't you stick to the facts of the case?

Your uzi murder comparison is completely off base for the reasons previously stated.

You've taken the side of people like Hannity, Rush and the other RW media parrots on this issue. Maybe you should pause and reflect on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #150)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 11:25 PM

151. Every time someone has responded to you with facts, you throw a logical fallacy at them

If you agree not to do that, perhaps we can have a dialogue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #151)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 11:31 PM

152. I challenge you to dispute any of the facts I've put forth. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #152)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 11:33 PM

153. Like what? What 'facts' have you put forth? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #153)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 11:52 PM

156. This thread is here for you to read.

What is really sad is that people go around parroting the tired RW lines that he has somehow threatened the safety of Americans or their allies. There is no evidence of this and none has been presented in the past 2 years. I am still waiting for it. It doesn't even look like the prosecution is going to attempt that argument at this point.

On the other hand, the leaks themselves exposed some dastardly crimes; the Dyncorp Child sex-trafficking and cover-up scandal being only one.

Meanwhile they toss 20 charges at him in the hopes that at least a few can pass legal muster, so that they may put him away for life as an example to those who would speak out against the crimes that are committed in our name, funded with our tax dollars. When he has already spent plenty of time in jail for any thing he might actually be culpable of, so far nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #156)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 12:04 AM

158. Let me get this straight...

you want evidence that Manning put into danger people whose entire job is top secret and who are either still at their posts and under cover, or who have been quietly eliminated by the counterintelligence agencies (whose operations are also secret) of foreign governments.

Let me know when you figure out how ridiculous that request is.

I'll make it super simple for you. Some of the information that diplomats in our embassies and consulates report back to the state department is information gathered by spies who are based at the embassy and their contacts in the host country.

That information is now public thanks to Manning and Assange. Any information obtained by intelligence sources can now be traced by counterintelligence agencies of the other countries whose entire expertise deals with figuring out who are spies and who might have leaked or obtained information. Some of that work is as simple as this:

"Aha, wikileaks shows that a diplomat in an embassy in our country reported on a conversation which our investigation says took place in the defense ministry between Person A and Person B on Jan 14 2007 at 2pm. Well, only four other people were in that room at that time. Let's focus our investigation on those six people and put their lives under a microscope and figure out who is the spy"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #158)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 12:20 AM

159. You sound like you watch too many James Bond / Tom Clancy movies

There is no evidence that fantasy has played out at all.

Meanwhile the very real crime of child sex-slave trafficking was committed by a company HQ'ed in Fairfax Virginia. They were caught in 2000 doing it with no prosecutions forthcoming. Thanks to Bradley Manning, we know they did again in 2010.

For all we know they have been doing it the entire time in the interim and since...with no prosecutions forthcoming.

Meanwhile the RW talking heads on tv and the totally-not-right-wing trolls on DU want to focus on what a "traitor" this man is. Yes he is a hero.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #159)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 08:45 AM

162. Which means nothing coming from you because you know nothing about it

If you did, you would know that what I have outlined is a very typical counter-intel scenario.

Which you apparently don't know anything about and either don't have the integrity to admit it or are so fanatically devoted to Manning and Assange that you will throw nonsense at other people's points suggesting any issues with their actions regardless of your obvious lack of knowledge about various subject matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #162)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 03:31 PM

166. You have still not provided evidence of the Rush/Hannity talking points you espoused previously...

...and neither will the military court, not that it matters for Private Manning, sadly. They only need a couple of the lesser scatter-shot charges to marginally stick in order to have an excuse to put him anyway for the rest of his life. Meanwhile, rapists walk free.

For the record, I am not a fan of Assange and this topic is not about him. He deserves prosecution for any and all crimes he has committed. As I have said, everyone deserves justice. Wikileaks, like the government, like any PMC, is an organization. All organizations have some good and some bad people. That does not mean that the good people should just duck heads low and keep their eyes to the ground as the bad people commit their misdeeds upon the innocent. That does not 'protect' the organization. Manning did our country a service by standing up for what is right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #166)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 04:51 PM

170. You just issued yet another logical fallacy by trying to suggest I espoused Rush /Hannity talking

points. That is the guilt by association fallacy.

You really ought to learn how to dialogue and argue without using straw men, ad-hominem, guilt by association, etc.

Here is a good list of logical fallacies http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

In particular, you should check out
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html
Description of Guilt By Association


Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.
Therefore P is false
It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example the following is obviously a case of poor "reasoning": "You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn't believe it."

which is exactly what you did by saying I used Rush/Hannity Talking Points.

and there is one of your favorites, the straw man...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Examples of Straw Man

Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #170)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 04:29 AM

173. "distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented..."

Is that like comparing blowing the whistle on war crimes to going on an uzi killing spree?



I didn't think it could get any nuttier but then another poster came up with "coup". A first for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #173)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 08:52 AM

174. No. Its not. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #66)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:29 AM

111. so your singular contribution to the problem of child abuse

Is to accuse survivors of enabling pedophilia. Classy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #59)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:50 PM

70. If you've followed this at all, you'd know that Manning has serious emotional problems.

He has gender identity disorder. He punched his commanding officer. He was found curled up on the floor in a fetal position after having carved the words 'I want' into a chair. And his stepfather threw him out of the house when he threatened his mother.

None of this is an excuse for mistreatment but he was, and possibly still is, a suicide risk. Not because of the millions of documents he gave to Assange. Because he's kind of a confused kid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #70)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:09 AM

75. That has nothing to do with how he was treated

Or that it has taken years to get a trail. They did this to him because he dared to speak out against their fraternity. He is being made an example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #75)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:26 AM

82. Putting him in solitary DOES have to do with being a suicide risk.

And there was already a ruling that says Manning's right to a speedy trial was not violated. Part of the delay was because the prosecution needed a sanity evaluation. You have to admit, the guy had -and probably still has- some deep-rooted emotional problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #59)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:22 PM

91. He was in solitary for 9 months, not years.

it was wrong but lets not exaggerate here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #91)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:42 PM

101. This is correct.

I was mistaken; but it has been about 2.5 years in total. That is still extremely excessive considering the crimes he exposed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #4)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 06:52 PM

137. The issue is the secrecy itself.

These days, secrecy is just a way to get more and more people killed. It can't lead to anything progressive or humanistic.
Policies that were going to have a positive result wouldn't REQUIRE secrecy.

Bradley Manning did what he did to help mankind...and that SHOULD have made a difference. It shouldn't be treated as if its just the same as selling info to an "enemy" for money.

The National Security State is never on OUR side, Recursion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:29 PM

99. I see it as different

The Pentagon Papers were a conscientious act against a specific policy, a war about which the American public were being lied to.

Manning dumped documents, irrespective of subject matter. The notion that Assange advances is that the US has no right to any governmental secrets, regardless of policy matter or need to protect methods, sources, and even human lives. Do you agree?

Ellsberg's position was principled and his goals targeted. I don't know what Manning's motives were, but the act only served to compromise the security of the United States. The result was not to expose a particular policy failing but to hurt the government and country as a whole. He did not simply release the information to Iran, China, or North Korea. He released it to the entire world. including all those who wish to do harm to this nation.

One does not need to be right wing to believe that every act by the government should be exposed for all to see. Should we release President Obama's comings and goings to make it easier to assassinate him? If you don't think so, why should the lives of US diplomatic officials, CIA agents, and their sources be treated more callously. Do you think Scotter Libby and Dick Cheney were justified in leaking Valerie Plame's name? Wikileaks and Manning did that hundreds of times over. Manning is no more progressive than Dick Cheney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #99)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:38 PM

100. You think child sex-trafficking by US contractors should be protected?

Before you get all defensive. Deciding not to prosecute is protecting them. Hiding the event from the public so that there will not be political pressure to prosecute is protecting them. That should have been the big story here, not Manning. Don't be a rape apologist.

Please take the time to read some of the cables in question, and Manning's own quotes regarding them. I linked to some of that material in this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #100)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:06 PM

104. If it has been a series of cables on that topic specifically

that would be another matter. That is the salient point. He wasn't exposing a particular wrongdoing. He was dumping hundreds of thousands of documents and providing them to a website whose founder believes that America has no right to state secrets at all. But that isn't what Manning did. Moreover, I doubt he even knew what he was dumping. There were enormous numbers of documents released. He couldn't possibly had read them all before downloading them.

There is no way you could have read all those cables. There aren't enough hours in the day. That some of the cables turned out to be useful doesn't justify a wholesale dump. It's a simple mathematical probability. Only so many will result in the loss of life, and some will produce information the public should know. The key difference between Manning and Ellsberg is the broad, undifferentiated nature of the documents comprising the Wikileaks dump. Nice effort to defend the boy by referencing child trafficking, but the argument doesn't hold water because most of the documents release did not deal with that.

You're right that I haven't spent time reading about Manning's motives. ( I clicked on several of your posts and saw no links. I only saw your attempt to paint anyone who doesn't see Manning as a hero as being a right wing troll.) But I don't know why you think anyone should believe whatever justification he claims. He is charged with treason. He's going to say whatever he thinks helps him. I suppose I could believe Cheney and Libby too, but I don't. Speaking of which, you didn't answer the question about those two: Do you also stand with Cheney and Libby on their release of the CIA agent's name? Why should Manning be held in higher esteem?

Manning's actions strike me as those of a child without the mental maturity to consider the consequences of his actions. But he was over 18 and will be tried as an adult. Manning deserves a fair trial like every other citizen, and I hope he receives one. But he doesn't get my sympathy or admiration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #104)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:29 PM

105. There is no proof that the cables resulted in the loss of life

They are not not going to be able to show that at the trial. So what if he did not read everything? He read enough. It wasn't nuclear bomb plans or encryption algorithms or names of secret agents. It's not that level of classification. All it did was expose our diplomats for who they really are. Not their names, which are already public, but their attitudes and how they manipulate people while shirking their duty to the innocent.

RE: "Do you also stand with Cheney and Libby on their release of the CIA agent's name?"

No I don't. Did Plame rape any kids? Criminals do not deserve anonymity but she didn't commit any crimes. The comparison is so ridiculous that yes, it is a troll. The cables also did not expose the names of any secret operatives. It wasn't that kind of material. I didn't respond because the question is immaterial to this discussion.

Yes if you take the right wing's side in this by electing to come to the side of rapists, then you are being a right wing troll. I realize from your post that you may be genuinely ignorant of what was in those cables, but that also is something you have elected to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #105)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 12:41 AM

108. that is not what the NYTimes reported

They stopped linking to the articles because it did expose the name of operatives.
Your post is too naive to even become angry about. Your response is absurd, childish, and clumsy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #108)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:01 AM

114. I guess we'll see what the prosecution presents at trial. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #100)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 01:29 AM

110. I could believe the NY Times report

or a deliberately insulting person like you who refuses to provide any evidence that Manning knew anything about contractors raping children before he released the documents. Paper of record or someone who refuses to provide any evidence. I'll go with the former.

Here is what the NYTimes reports the subject of the dumps include:

"¶ A dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel: Since 2007, the United States has mounted a highly secret effort, so far unsuccessful, to remove from a Pakistani research reactor highly enriched uranium that American officials fear could be diverted for use in an illicit nuclear device. In May 2009, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was refusing to schedule a visit by American technical experts because, as a Pakistani official said, “if the local media got word of the fuel removal, ‘they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,’ he argued.”

¶ Thinking about an eventual collapse of North Korea: American and South Korean officials have discussed the prospects for a unified Korea, should the North’s economic troubles and political transition lead the state to implode. The South Koreans even considered commercial inducements to China, according to the American ambassador to Seoul. She told Washington in February that South Korean officials believe that the right business deals would “help salve” China’s “concerns about living with a reunified Korea” that is in a “benign alliance” with the United States.

¶ Bargaining to empty the Guantánamo Bay prison: When American diplomats pressed other countries to resettle detainees, they became reluctant players in a State Department version of “Let’s Make a Deal.” Slovenia was told to take a prisoner if it wanted to meet with President Obama, while the island nation of Kiribati was offered incentives worth millions of dollars to take in Chinese Muslim detainees, cables from diplomats recounted. The Americans, meanwhile, suggested that accepting more prisoners would be “a low-cost way for Belgium to attain prominence in Europe.”

¶ Suspicions of corruption in the Afghan government: When one of Afghanistan’s two vice presidents visited the United Arab Emirates last year, local authorities working with the Drug Enforcement Administration discovered that he was carrying $52 million in cash. With wry understatement, a cable from the American Embassy in Kabul called the money “a significant amount” that the official, Ahmed Zia Massoud, “was ultimately allowed to keep without revealing the money’s origin or destination.” (Mr. Massoud denies taking any money out of Afghanistan.)

¶ A global computer hacking effort: China’s Politburo directed the intrusion into Google’s computer systems in that country, a Chinese contact told the American Embassy in Beijing in January, one cable reported. The Google hacking was part of a coordinated campaign of computer sabotage carried out by government operatives, private security experts and Internet outlaws recruited by the Chinese government. They have broken into American government computers and those of Western allies, the Dalai Lama and American businesses since 2002, cables said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Naturally dumping an additional 250,000 documents unrelated to child rape has no effect on you, as long as you have a good excuse to try to smear a Democratic government and attack those who worked to elect that President. The fact Manning turned the documents over to a man who has allegedly raped several women obviously is inconsequential to you. Who believes women anyway. They are all right wing trolls. It's unfortunate that your ego is so much more important than your desire to spread information on the subject, or you might have written an informed post with evidence rather than relying on simple minded insults. But providing evidence and analysis requires a bit of intelligence and effort, a bar too high for you.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #110)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 05:59 AM

113. Rape apology deserves insult and more

And trust me the people who did this are not Democrats. You should be demanding action from Democratic leadership instead of being so blindly defensive. Rape culture is not a Democratic ideal. It is very much the realm of the right-wing. Just look at the last election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #113)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:19 AM

116. by the way

It's particularly classy of you to attack survivors of child abuse as apologists for pedophilia.

15-20% of all women were victims of child molestation as children, as were another 5-15% of men. Additionally, 25% of women are victims of rape as adults.
In any random group of five to six people, someone will be a survivor. But it makes you feel important to accuse them of enabling more pedophilia. Yeah, you're a great champion for abuse victims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #116)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 04:55 PM

123. The posts are what they are.

It's an indefensible and disgusting position. It's sad that it is excepted here these days. It's not unlike what we saw on DU regarding Penn State.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #123)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 05:17 PM

125. it isn't a position

You have't exerted enough effort to advance a position. You've provided no evidence or analysis. That would require thought. Instead, you invented excuses in an effort to advance the goals of an accused rapist. You've insulted child abuse survivors and endorsed misogyny. If you are what passes for a champion of abused women and children, we're in huge trouble. We don't want help from the likes of you. You've exposed yourself. I seriously doubt anyone buys your act.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #125)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 01:28 AM

130. uh-huh

1. Americans hired by the US government rape and sell kids
2. The government employee who discovered this chooses to cover it up, thereby protecting the perps
3. Another government employee finds out and decides to go public with it
4. You have a problem with him doing that for some reason

You can deflect as much as you want and write another winded essay or two, but this is the position you have taken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #100)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 08:13 PM

142. Reporting it to the inspector general of the army would have gotten the ball rolling on that. I used

the I.G. when I was on active duty in the USAF. It works.

Of course, it doesn't get you your name in the paper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 12:55 AM

109. i got pulled into the jury on this post :)

At Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:47 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

How is this not like the Pentagon Papers?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=371668

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Calls fellow DUers trolls several times in this thread.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:52 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: toughen up RW troll bitches
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamPooka (Reply #109)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 06:09 AM

115. I hope you were #3

I hate it when they don't leave comments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #115)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:46 PM

119. Indeed. Approving the use of a sexist term on the thread where you accuse others of rape apologia

kind of undercuts your argument's strength, IMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #119)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 04:22 PM

120. I would have thought that would be obvious

and I'm glad you made the point. Someone had to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #119)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 05:00 PM

124. Good to see you equate using the word "bitches" with covering up child rape.

Obviously everything cancels out. Nice job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #124)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 05:22 PM

126. Those raped little girls grow up

to be the "bitches" you despise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #126)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 01:32 AM

131. They were boys in this incident

Not that it makes it better or worse. Just pointing out that you are still ignorant of the facts of the very crimes you so ardently argue should have been kept classified and un-prosecuted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #131)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 04:24 PM

132. Oh, now I understand

Last edited Fri Mar 1, 2013, 05:10 PM - Edit history (1)

It's boys. That's why calling me a bitch is acceptable. It's not like I'm male and important or anything.

I never argued crimes should be kept classified. I said you have provided no evidence that Manning intended to expose child rape or that he even knew what was contained on any of the documents he released.

What are you doing to stop sex slavery of children in the US?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #132)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 06:17 PM

135. Wow, you waited a loooooooong time to reply.

And it looks like you still managed to not do any homework in the meantime. You don't know that the documents were among Manning's leaks? You can't be serious? Holy crap, stop being so obstinate and google it.

As far as the gender of the victims, I pointed it out to you because it was YOU who got the facts wrong, which betrayed that you haven't done any reading and don't even know what you are talking about here. You need to understand that the crimes were not only classified, but left un-investigated, un-prosecuted AND the company still gets contracts from US taxpayers. This company(Dyncorp) was previously caught trafficking female sex slaves in Bosnia in the 90's. That went un-prosecuted too and the perps were allowed to walk with just a resignation. Google it.

Have you considered spending merely 5 minutes to research the facts of the case instead of taking however long it takes you to type out these inane responses? It is hard to have a real conversation with someone who chooses to remain ignorant.

I am glad that you, finally, can admit that the crimes should not have been kept classified, but do you remember the original post with which you responded to me(#99)? Maybe you should read it again, now knowing what you know, and consider if you would still make the same statement.

I have already provided chat logs from Manning, which came from the man who turned him in, wherein he stated that he was deeply disturbed by the content of the documents("incredible things, awful things… things that belonged in the public domain"). Maybe this specific, incredibly awful, thing was not one that he was talking about. Unfortunately the leaks contain a lot of incredibly awful things that belong in the public domain(just like the Pentagon Papers), so it is hard to say. How is that material to this discussion at all? Nobody asked Ellsberg if he took issue with every single crime detailed in the 7000 page papers, as if there was one he did not care about, then it would mean he was wrong to release them at all.

It is the job of public servants to protect against these crimes. Instead the diplomats, who were supposed to be the front-line in this, decided to bury it when it was reported to them. If Private Manning had not outed them, then nobody would have and we would still be ignorant. He was doing his job by upholding the constitution. He did his country a service.


Can you now admit that it is at least a good thing that you are aware of these crimes? Because you would not be if not for Bradley Manning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #124)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 08:04 PM

128. And you've used it again. Which undercuts your argument even more. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 04:30 PM

133. The difference is the leaker is known.

The identity of Deep Throat was not known, so he could not be charged with leaking classified information.

Manning's identity is known, so he can be charged.

It's a crime for someone with access to classified information to leak that information. Recipients of that information can broadcast it all they want - they have not waived their first amendment rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #133)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 06:48 PM

136. I meant more in the sense that Manning is being made out as the bad guy.

...whereas Elsberg is regarded as a hero. I guess, back then, a lot of people considered Elsberg a traitor. I also think the media has moved a lot to the right since then and that plays a big part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #133)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 07:22 PM

138. Oh and you are thinking of watergate

Pentagon Papers was a separate scandal; different people. Elsberg and Russo were charged(and acquitted) but again I was not asking about the difference in how they were charged, as I previously explained.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #138)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 07:35 PM

139. Ah yes, my mistake. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:28 AM

2. does manning boost al queda membership by using drones? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:29 AM

3. Military justice is to justice,

as military music is to music.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 08:06 PM

141. Perhaps, but you are adequately warned in basic training about how strict things are.

I saw several training videos on how harsh the military justice system is and how the courts martial process works. It sunk in. I realized right off that the military is not the place to play games in or break the rules.

No doubt Manning saw several fellow soldiers get in varying amounts of trouble in the few years he was in and he should have known what would happen to him. He also knew how you were supposed to report wrongdoing. He could have gone to the inspector general and a congressman.

All branches of the military regularly advertise to all members the inspector general system. They want you to use it if you see wrongdoing. The number and email for the IG is in the base/post newspaper every month.

This guy had options and he should have known better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:50 AM

12. No justification for telling the truth! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:24 AM

17. Military and "justice" don't go together.

The judge's future promotions are contingent upon the decision's of her commanding officer's. Judges in the military are biased. They go the way the command wants. That's the sad reality. The high command want's Bradley burned and this judge will give them what they want. Simple as that. If these military asshat's wanted to truly instill discipline they would start with their ridiculous budget. That's where the real crime is taking place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:26 AM

18. Manning had NO motive, other than seeking attention.

 

Well, he's got plenty of that now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:09 AM

19. Is he not charged with leaking the "Collateral Murder" video?

An interesting omission, if not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snot (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:46 AM

21. That's the gunship video?

If so that's one of the charges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #21)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 12:58 AM

121. No, it's video from a helicopter clearly documenting

the unwarranted gunning down of several innocents, including a father and the wounding of his children and I think including a journalist. Just google "Collateral Murder"; hopefully it's still online.

This was one of the items Manning was believed to have leaked, and if so and if he's not charged with it, that would be an interesting omission. It caused quite a sensation when it came out, and one wonders whether t.p.t.b. felt it would be better to leave it out of the case, since it would certainly have justified Manning's leaking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snot (Reply #121)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 01:37 AM

122. Helicopter = gunship. That's one of the charges

Assange himself comments on the clearly visible RPG in the video. A helicopter attacked a group of armed men out after curfew, and a journalist who was with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #122)


Response to snot (Reply #121)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 04:46 PM

169. The video from which this frame is taken, yes?




In which a person holding a long cylindrical object is peeking around a corner at the helicopter. That video?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:42 AM

20. I thought the basis of his argument was that he was following the military's code of honor...

Which would probably include the Geneva Conventions, etc. And that he found out things that violated it. Thus required by a higher authority, such as his conscience, to reveal wrongdoing committed in the command structure. For example:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Isn't that what his defense is here on DU? That war crimes were committed and that violated the code or the Geneva Convention, which we are bound to?

Not the UMCJ, but whatever they have been told about how to treat prisoners, the enemy, etc. His defenders believe he was answering a higher calling than just work orders. I don't think the judge has ruled out his being found innocent by this paragraph:

The judge ruled that - Manning's motive could only be examined to argue that he did not "knowingly aid the enemy," chiefly Al-Qaeda, by uploading and releasing the files.

AFAIK, he has a good chance of winning on that count. As usual, I'm not military and I'm not an attorney. Just curious as to how this can be resolved the right way.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:44 PM

56. If that were true, then he'd have my full support.

 

Instead, he gave away a shitload of classified material, to which he had no knowledge of their contents. That's unforgivable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to railsback (Reply #56)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:36 PM

57. His defenders focus on an aerial video, not that other material.

Last edited Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Wikileaks has thrived on the belief that all governments are no good, they are all in cahoots, so it doesn't matter what is released or how. That internet readers can make a decision to free themselves, well-informed or not, that government is the major problem - which is the Koch, Bircher, libertarian and Nordquist view.

How very convenient, since conspiracy pundits teach this as well, and make any positive changes in the government they complain, a self-fulfilling prophecy as all laws and regulations are destroyed.

They don't go after corporations and churches, major power brokers in our lives, controlling more than governments, and far more secretive. Their heirarchy is ignored, and abuses of people and the environment get a free pass. Unless they can drag an aspect of government into the conspiracy, they don't care.

They don't intend to give transparency to free people as no one has been freed by what they have done, but a lot of money has been made. A lot of people have bought into the despair they promote. Which gave us 2010 and the Tea Party win.

I don't see classified information as sacred, but understand someone closer to the situation, a person who has been in the military, has a different view. Only if people's lives were put in danger and I guess the common person would not know the details and it irks them not to know - since it's classified and they can't get the information to decide.

I've come to think our specialities won't allow us to see the big picture, except as a mythology presented by conspiracy pundits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #57)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:26 PM

106. You paint with a very broad brush...

I would qualify everything you are saying as belonging to the right-wing, (big L) Libertarian conspiracy point of view. Few members of that group would be defending Wikileaks.

There definitely is a need for whistleblowing in an American society that, for many of the wrong reasons, has decided that it can spend more on a secretive military than other domestic programs which are now under consideration for being cut. Maybe not exactly in the way Bradley Manning has gone about it, but to lump all whistleblowers under the heading of being distrustful of all segments of government is simply careless and destructive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #20)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:55 PM

102. Here's how it went for Col. Lakin...

His court martial was presided over by the same judge.

Col. Lakin's interpretation of his oath was that it allowed him to refuse deployment to Afghanistan because the president had not provided him with proof of birth in the United States, and hence to deploy in response to an order would be obeying an illegal order. This would, Lakin argued, make him a war criminal.

Six months, loss of rank, loss of pension, and dishonorable discharge.

We have a civilian government in this country. I don't care if it is Lakin upset with who is president, or Manning upset with things at the State Department. Both the Office of President and the Department of State are civilian bodies, and I am not at ALL down with the military, or anyone in the military, deciding that it is the military's job to investigate, spy on or take action against, the civilian government of the United States.

Perhaps Mr. Manning should have found like-minded others in the Army and mounted a coup. Is that where this leads?

This is what the "Oath Keepers" are all about - something of a coup-in-waiting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #102)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:41 PM

107. Yes, that group is scary. I'll get back with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:59 AM

22. This man has been punished enough. Go after the management who didn't notice what was downloaded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:27 AM

24. He exposed war-crimes, as he is legally oblieged to do.

The court is complicit in the war-crimes. That much is clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 05:29 AM

25. Agreed

Anyone that feels he was wrong to release this info needs to watch the murder of innocent people from the helicopter. This is an atrocity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newfie11 (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:04 AM

39. And the gigabytes of State Department cables, that he didn't even read before uploading?

The disabling of the security features on the military router?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #39)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:58 AM

79. I'm sort of at a loss how he managed to do all of this stuff on his shift, I guess.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #39)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:57 AM

83. and this is worse than what we have done to innocence by the thousands?

Last edited Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:29 AM - Edit history (1)

Sorry but I disagree with you. To my knowledge there were no Americans killed due to what was released.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newfie11 (Reply #83)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 08:06 AM

84. As someone pointed out, some of this information ended up on Big Laden's laptop.

If no one died because of it, he definitely put the lives of his fellow soldiers at risk. Manning's superiors are culpable in this, as well, by letting him have access to that much material and by deploying him to Iraq when they were warned not to.

He should be shown leniency because of that and because of his emotional problems.

But a message does need to be sent to other members of the armed forces -you do NOT hand over classified information to a foreign national. Ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 05:45 AM

26. What war crimes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 05:54 AM

27. Murder of civilians.

And furthermore, vast amounts of details of the Iraq war, which in itself constitutes a crime against peace and a crime against humanity by the standards of Nuremberg.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:07 AM

30. YOu mean the video where Assange describes a guy carrying an RPG, after curfew, that was fired on?

“One of them has a weapon,” Assange said, peering at blurry footage of the men walking down the street. “See all those people standing out there.”

“And there is a guy with an RPG over his arm,” Gonggrijp said.

“I’m not sure.” Assange said. “It does look a little bit like an RPG.” He played the footage again. “I’ll tell you what is very strange,” he said. “If it is an RPG, then there is just one RPG. Where are all the other weapons? All those guys. It is pretty weird.”

The forensic work was made more difficult because Assange had declined to discuss the matter with military officials. “I thought it would be more harmful than helpful,” he told me. “I have approached them before, and, as soon as they hear it is WikiLeaks, they are not terribly coöperative.” Assange was running Project B as a surprise attack. He had encouraged a rumor that the video was shot in Afghanistan in 2009, in the hope that the Defense Department would be caught unprepared. Assange does not believe that the military acts in good faith with the media. He said to me, “What right does this institution have to know the story before the public?”


Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian#ixzz2IEYd0nw8


FYI--if he had evidence of war crimes, the law compels him to submit them to Congress, not enter into a relationship with a commercial enterprise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:11 AM

31. Yeah. That one.

What right does the military have to know what's going on in the military before civilians? That's a rich statement.

Thank you, Australia!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:17 AM

32. I know it's unfair to quote Assange when talking about Assange--but it's rather relevatory when

he speaks, no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:36 AM

33. So you defend a militarized police state.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CE5 (Reply #33)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:41 AM

34. Uh...huh?

I was and am against the Iraq war. What America did to a country that never harmed us is one of the most horrifying things I've ever seen.

But when soldiers are told to kill anyone who is out at night carrying weapons, it's little surprise that they follow orders.

Defunding the military so these little 'adventures' of ours don't occur again and I'm fine with that. But for Assange to say that I have a right to somehow approve of what the military does when they are engaged in a conflict is to take 'backseat quarterbacking' to an absurd level.

The only right I have to say what the military does is by voting and/or protesting. I'm no military expert.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #34)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:49 AM

36. You are wrong. By the standards of Nuremberg soldiers are required to disobey illegal orders.

Any order in the context of an illegal war of aggression is illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Reply #36)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:02 AM

37. The international community has, regrettably, supported the Iraq war.

So I don't see getting it classified as an 'illegal' war is going to happen. I agree that it should be but that doesn't give me the right to take classified documents and hand them over to an Australian.

Because, in the end, the video Manning was concerned about does nothing to convince the international community that the invasion of Iraq was illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:07 AM

41. And even if the video did show a crime, there's the cables that he leaked without reading

I have yet to even hear somebody try to defend that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Reply #36)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:06 AM

40. Are you saying enforcing a curfew is an illegal order?

Are you even trying to be serious?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #40)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:11 AM

43. If you are an illegal invader, then yes, enforcing a curfew is illegal.

The USA had no more right to execute people for violating a curfew than the Wehrmacht had the right to do the massacre in the ghetto of Warsaw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Reply #43)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:13 AM

45. Are you under the impression that a war not sanctioned by the Security Council is "illegal"?

If so, I think I see the problem here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #45)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:18 AM

46. To my knowledge, the UN charta forbids attacking other countries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Reply #46)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:28 AM

48. Unfortunately, it was the international community -i.e. the U.N.- that invaded Iraq.

Led by American dominance and incompetence. I think America's hubris could stand to be taken down a notch or two. But I don't see the international community voting to charge themselves with a crime.

It's not right, perhaps, but that's the way it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Reply #36)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:42 AM

76. Congress authorized the war on terror, and reauthorized it 3 times. Therefore it is not illegal.

 

And 3000 people died on 9-11.
we are at war.

Why was he in the military to begin with?
As it is voluntary in the first place.
It would seem like he shouldn't have been accepted, nor is he seemingly the soldier type.

So why did he join?
Has anyone ever asked about this aspect?

There are like 320 million people in the United States.
How is it that the Ron Paul, libertarian types always find these one or two people to focus on?
(like billions going through airport security, yet 3 people with camera make large complaints of harrasment and slander an entire work force.)

The odds are astounding aren't they???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #76)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:33 AM

77. What does congress have to do with international law?

Why is it that American-exceptionalist types always cite American laws when it comes to questions of war? What congress declared or not declared is irrelevant.

Are you accusing me of being a libertarian?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:47 AM

35. Since the US had no right to impose a curfew in Iraq or fire on people, RPG or not, yes ...

...it is a warcrime.

And no, the law compels him to submit the evidence to the international community, not to congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:03 AM

38. No. "War crime" means something, and that's not it.

And no, the law compels him to submit the evidence to the international community, not to congress.

That's not true. That's not even close to true. Where did you get that idea?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #38)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:08 AM

42. Easy:

The UN charta forbids aggressive warfare. Ergo, the government who engages in such warfare is acting outside of legal bounds. Thus such issues are resolved by international courts, not said governments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Reply #42)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:12 AM

44. That's also not true. Neither of those is true.

The UN charter does not forbid aggressive warfare. Every single permanent member of the Security Council has engaged in aggressive warfare since joining. The purpose of the UN is to keep those permanent members from going to war with each other and destroying the world along with them, and it's succeeded very well at that.

Thus such issues are resolved by international courts, not said governments.

I understand this is "what the law would be if redgreenandblue ran things", but it's not what the law actually is.

(Also, the only time a superior orders defense has been held invalid even in an international court is in cases of genocide.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #44)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:28 AM

47. ....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_VII_of_the_United_Nations_Charter

The charta forbids attacks on other states. That the security coucil did not step in reflects the power balance, not the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Reply #47)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:21 PM

52. Are we reading the same link?



"Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations."

Because that ^^^ doesnt seem to be forbidding anything and in fact it seems that it authorizes force.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #52)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:34 PM

53. Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_peace

"A crime against peace, in international law, refers to "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing".

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression_%28war_crime%29

"A war of aggression, sometimes also war of conquest, is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense, usually for territorial gain and subjugation. The phrase is distinctly modern and diametrically opposed to the prior legal international standard of "might makes right", under the medieval and pre-historic beliefs of right of conquest. Since the Korean War of the early 1950s, waging such a war of aggression is a crime under the customary international law. Possibly the first trial for waging aggressive war is that of Conradin von Hohenstaufen in 1268."

------------------------------------------------------

This is exactly what the US did.The council did not authorize an invasion of Iraq. Iraq was not a threat to peace or at the time invading another country, so the invasion was illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Reply #53)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:47 PM

55. Thanks but the problem of that first part I quotes still exists in that

it in fact does allow for the UN to authorize force which is what happened because they gave the US a blank check in how to proceed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:39 AM

49. The US government has no right to restrict RPGs? ok.

And yes the lawcBradley Manning volunteeredto serve under does compel him to give over evidence of war crimes to a member of Congress. It's called the Military Whistleblowers Protection Act of 1988.

Julian Assang is not the international community. He runs a corporate enterprise. if Manning was truly concerned why didn't he turn over the video to the UN?














Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #49)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:47 AM

50. The US governments has the right to restrict RPGs.

Inside the US. Not inside Iraq. There it falls to the Iraqi government to restrict RPGs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Reply #50)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:30 AM

51. Um--this was an Iraqi-imposed curfew, enforced by Iraqis and the US military, jointly:

You forget that at the time, 2006 and 2007, sectarian violence was as its worst---curfews were routinely imposed by the Iraqi command on the civilian population, and this particular curfew was a direct result of brutal bombings that had taken many lives and religious shrines. Here's an account of one such bombing and curfew that summer.



Shiite Shrine in Samarra Is Hit Again

By John Ward Anderson and Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, June 14, 2007

BAGHDAD, June 13 -- The Iraqi government imposed a curfew across Baghdad on Wednesday after insurgents used explosives to demolish two minarets at a revered Shiite shrine whose partial destruction last year sparked a devastating increase in sectarian bloodshed.

The attack raised concerns among U.S. and Iraqi leaders about a resurgence of such violence. President Bush said in a statement Wednesday evening that the bombing "was clearly aimed at inflaming sectarian tensions" and called on "all Iraqis to refrain from acts of vengeance."

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, in a nationally televised address, urged his countrymen to "exercise self-restraint" and sought to portray the attack as evidence that insurgents "have lost hope in dismembering the state."



The summer of 2007, Iraq nearly fell apart as Sunnis and Shiites battled it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #51)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:37 PM

54. Yeah.

So it boils down to the legitimacy of the post-invasion government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #51)

Mon Mar 4, 2013, 11:34 PM

154. The salient point in all of this...

...is that when you raise the prospect that the photographer's camera was mistaken for a weapon, then the answer is that the entire conflict was illegal. If that is the case, though, then Bradley Manning's disclosure of the video is irrelevant. Given the premise that the entire conflict, in which Mr. Manning volunteered to participate, is already illegal, then I don't see what the video has to do with anything, as Mr. Manning did not somehow demonstrate that the conflict was illegal.

I just don't see how the conclusion "the entire conflict was illegal" somehow depends on anything he is alleged to have released.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:57 PM

60. Child sex slave trafficking by US contractors, and the attempted cover up by US diplomats

for one thing among many others. You can't seriously still be ignorant of this, after years?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #60)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:52 PM

61. Throw the book at them! No question! But is that a war crime?

Doesn't sound like it to me. It sounds like something that should have gone through other channels than an Australian.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #61)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:28 PM

62. It happened in Afghanistan(so yes war crime), and no contractors or diplomats have been charged.

The practice can still be ongoing for all we know, and likely is. You are right about one thing though, it should have gone through other channels.

That Diplomats superiors in the State Department(buck stopped at Bush, then Obama btw) should have pressured ISAF to arrest them and all the contractors involved. But they didn't. Instead the whole event got classified and no action was taken against the US citizens who were involved. No Americans have gone to jail as of yet. There is not even an investigation ongoing by the State Department.

Nobody who's job it is to do something did anything. So what should a patriotic American do? Bradley Manning is a hero.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #60)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:34 PM

63. Not the Military

Those are not military members and are not subject to the UCMJ. Civilians are under a whole different set of rules. Civil Criminal and are the responsibility of the State Dept.
One of the examples I saw here stated that Manning took the video of the Chopper firing from the JAG folder. Meaning it was already under investigation from the Military.
As MSANTHROPE has spoken so well on, the time line that these action had taken place was also vitally critical. The surge was underway and a new Status of Forces agreement was in negotiations. We had a new strategic partners withing Iraq. Releasing details about payments, support, and Diplomatic Strategies put people in harms way and weakened the American people's cause.
Just because you view a video or memo and take just it's face value and deem it harmless, you cannot discount that a military expert will be able to see those same info leaks and use them to develop new tactical responses or new offensive operations. This puts Manning's fellow Service members in danger and that is what cost lives. Quixotic or not, he knew what he was doing was wrong, why else the fake email accounts. Notifying the IG or Congress is not that hard, and when they come in, every bodies butt hole is slung shut tight. They do not mess around, especially a Congressional Investigative Delegation. Almost all Service members will, even the Democrats in the Military (yes there are more us than you think and they know) see this as a direct violation of the UCMJ that put fellow Soldiers at risk (no one will stand for that) and Damaged the American People's War Strategy. That part of our world is pretty black and white.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4Q2u2 (Reply #63)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:47 PM

64. Military works in conjunction with the State Department to be the law of the land

The diplo's classification in the memo was polmil. You are splitting irrelevant hairs.

The point is our government did not put the people who did this in jail and instead helped them avoid the public eye. You have somewhat of a point in that Manning maybe should have gone to a Senator. But what senator has the courage to demand justice? The story has been on out for years now(thanks to Manning) and I have not heard a peep from a senator.

He deserves a medal, not a years of solitary.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #64)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:25 PM

67. Congressmen are Better

Do you think Barney Frank would have been bullied or ignore evidence. House also holds the purse strings and can and do delay line item funding for the military till they get answers. Senior officer promotions can be held up in the Senate as well to bring pressure. Not going to the proper authorities violates the UCMJ. Pretty cut and dry. That deserves punishment and Service members are punished every day for UCMJ violations. This is not a business, discipline and following orders is a must. Each and every Soldier has to obey those orders. That is why it is in the oath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4Q2u2 (Reply #67)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:58 AM

73. The information has been out for years and congress has done nothing

"Congressmen are Better" - Based on what? Are you saying they would act on the info if it was told to them secretly, but not if it is public knowledge? I looks like they do nothing in either scenario.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #73)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:11 AM

80. Maybe they did look into it and Found Nothing

So either way secretly or Illegally exposing it publicly has resulted in no arrests or convictions. Then the only thing it did was compromise the Diplomatic and Millitary Missions. Recent reports have also stated that information leaked by Manning was found on Bin Laden's laptop, so that point of not aiding the enemy will be proven.


If you can not believe in Barney Frank, Bernie Sanders, Dick Durbin or the Democratic adminstration of Barrack Obama the Civilian Masters of the Military, then what in the world is the Military suppposed to do. Civilian Contractors are not under the UCMJ and technically are not War Crimes. They are Criminal activities that are to be prosecuted by the Civilian Authorities. You seem to believe that the Whole of US Government is wrong and the only person right in this whole affair is Manning. Impossible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4Q2u2 (Reply #80)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:16 PM

92. I don't need blind faith in politicians, I can read

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #92)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 08:37 PM

93. You are right

Your blind faith is that the Guardian is perfect, Manning is perfect and the rest of the World is wrong. Orders are orders and he broke them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4Q2u2 (Reply #93)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 08:41 PM

94. The Guardian? That is a direct link to the cable with the Diplos own words and self incrimination

This site sometimes. Maybe you can't read I don't know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #92)


Response to 4Q2u2 (Reply #95)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:19 AM

96. Yes they are the Diplomat is referring US members of Dyncorp

Holy cow you are truly incapable of reading aren't you?

PS - Dyncorp did it in Bosnia too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #60)


Response to redgreenandblue (Reply #24)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:09 AM

87. and the information that was not related to war crimes that he 'exposed'

was he legally obligated to do that as well or is it acceptable in your view to just ignore the laws/rules he broke doing so?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bodhi BloodWave (Reply #87)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:27 AM

88. In my view...

...once the US invaded Iraq, it became guilty of crimes against peace and crimes against humanity, as defined by the UN charta and the standards of Nuremberg. In principle, the correct procedure to deal with this, in accordance with the principles layed out by the UN charta, would have been exactly what happened to nazi Germany: A subsequent military defeat of the US by the international community, followed by demilitarization, a trial and subsequent execution for the leaders and eventually new elections after a re-education period.

The fact that this did not occur reflects the power hierachies of the world, but does not reflect international law as it stands. Since the USA was in principle in the process of criminal activity while waging war against Iraq (the war itself was illegal) there cannot exist any legal right to strategic self-interest with respect to anything surrounding said war. It was therefore the right of every citizen of the world, US citizen or otherwise, to do whatever was within their means to derail said efforts. By leaking classified material which was related to the war effort in Iraq, Bradley Manning did exactly that.

edit:

Given the situation as it is, the above scenario is implausible and impractical. However, the US needs to acknowledge that it was fully in the wrong for invading Iraq, and freeing Bradley Manning would be one step in that direction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Reply #88)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:14 AM

89. a nice 'essay' but it did not answer the question of the info he released that had nothing to

with crimes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bodhi BloodWave (Reply #89)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:57 AM

90. The essential charge against him is "aiding the enemy".

That charge is voided by the fact that the war breached international law and the resistance of the Iraqis was therefore legal self-defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Reply #90)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 09:14 AM

97. i'm not arguing for or against that as its a seperate matter

All I want answered is if you think he should be excused for breaking the law regarding releasing the information that had nothing to do with war crimes and similar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bodhi BloodWave (Reply #97)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:01 PM

98. I think that if damages resulted to a person from the release of this info...

...this person (or the family of this person) should come forward and make claims against Manning. If it can be proven directly that what Manning did caused harm to an individual (outside of the context of the war-effort), there is a case. As long as this doesn't happen I see no justification to hold him.

Also, I think in such an event, if Manning were to argue (which he doesn't to my knowledge) that he believed the info he leaked contained only documentation of events connected to the war-effort, this defense carries a long way.

I do not think there is a legal justification (under international law, not US law) to charge someone with aiding the enemy in the context of a war that was a breach of international law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Reply #24)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:05 PM

103. That's what the "Oath Keepers" are all about


Col. Terence Lakin believed that his order to deploy to Afghanistan was an unlawful order, because the president had not provided him with proof of his birth as a United States citizen. Thus, he had an obligation to disobey his "unlawul" deployment order as it was issued by someone who was ineligible to be president.

The Department of State is part of our civilian government.

Is it the job of our military, or those in it, to investigate, spy on, expose or otherwise take action against the civilian government of the United States?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #103)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:56 AM

112. But the president is a US citizen.

Therefore the comparison is nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Reply #112)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:43 AM

117. We are talking about a "motive" defense in this thread

Any member of the military who believes that a civilian branch of the government is up to no good is entitled to put a stop to it.

That's the principle here, right?

Or, are you trying to say that each and every one of the diplomatic cables revealed a crime.

You fail to understand the notion of presenting a "defense". Col. Lakin was likewise not allowed to use his belief that the president is not a US citizen as a defense.

Or are you trying to say that you believe the admissibility of a defense depends on whether it is true? Do you understand what trials are for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:08 PM

69. I wonder how many of our intelligence assets died

 

because Manning released their NAMES to the world. And make no mistake, people certiainly died, probably horribly, because of Manning. You'll just never hear about them on the news.

This guy is no martyr, no hero.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I love weed (Reply #69)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:51 AM

78. That was my first concern about the 'data dump' as it seemed sloppy.

But wouldn't the prosecution use that as part of the charges? Why haven't the deaths or harm been brought out?

It would be remiss of them not to bring it up in the court. Even if they didn't expose the names of the dead or wounded.

He would lose in the court of public opinion as a crusader for truth, justice or stopping atrocities as some feel he is. I'm asking this because the reactions to him and his actions are emotional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #78)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 04:41 PM

134. Using it as part of the charges reveals additional classified information

Presumably, people are evaluating the benefit of releasing that information for trial versus the value of the information, and decided to not reveal it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:56 PM

71. The judge is applying the law correctly. What matters in determining guilt or innocence is

intent, not motive. Should Private Manning be convicted, motive may be introduced for consideration as a matter in extenuation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #71)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:59 PM

72. Salute for the distinction between intent and motive

Good point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #71)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:59 AM

118. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #71)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 09:16 AM

176. not a lawyer, but here motive and intent are pretty much the same

i.e. Manning's intent was to expose bad US gov. policies, which was his motive for doing just that, also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 05:57 PM

127. Isn't it Brenda Manning?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SWTORFanatic (Reply #127)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 09:58 AM

143. Because making fun of gay men by giving them female names is funny. Enjoy your stay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 03:34 AM

160. I recommend that everyone interested in the Bradley Manning

matter watch the German documentary, The Unknown Soldier. We watched it on Netflix. It is about the reaction of Germans including German neo-NAZIs to an exhibition showing the war crimes of ordinary German men enlisted in the German army in WWII.

It may be difficult to watch because it is in German and you will have to read the subtitles if you don't know German, but it deals with the problem of people who follow their consciences v. those who don't, and with the problems of a nation finally being confronted with its own war crimes -- not the crimes of the leadership but of the enlisted men in an army.

I found it very interesting. It presents the moral dilemma very well. Some of the photos showing the sexual humiliation of prisoners reminded me a bit of the photos from Abu Ghraib.

They couldn't find reports of German soldiers refusing to follow orders to commit war crimes of the sort that the film discusses on civilians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #160)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 05:01 PM

171. Having studied the Third Reich my whole life, I would say that they dont have anything in common

with Bradley Manning.

Manning also had no dilemma. He had the inspector general and members of congress as an avenue to report wrongdoing and if he had used that, he would have been immune to prosecution. He didnt go that route because he wanted publicity.

In the Third Reich, there was no inspector general to whom to report things one thought were crimes. The state at all levels was in favor of shooting prisoners and killing Jews, Roma, LGBT, etc. If Manning had opened his mouth to anyone in Nazi Germany, he would now be in a concentration camp subsisting on 400 - 600 calories a day, at labor for 16-18 hours a day every day with inadequate clothing in a northern european climate. And he would be subject to beatings and, depending on where he was sent, he would be in danger of being sent to the gas chamber. Oh, and this what I just described is the best possible outcome for Manning in Nazi Germany. They could have also simply had him shot for attempting to report an act by the SS and no one would have batted an eye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #171)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:26 AM

172. You should watch the film.

As I said earlier, it is all in German and may be a difficult thing to listen to if you don't understand it. Toward the end, the people who did the research to prepare the exhibition stated that they found no records indicating that the soldiers (ordinary Army enlistees, not SS) who refused orders to kill prisoners or others in violation of international law, were even tried.

The interesting thing is to see how the ordinary Germans -- so many years after WWII still were in denial about the role that the ordinary soldiers had in the Holocaust. They show the regimented, lock-step conduct of the neo-NAZIs in Germany.

My experience living in Germany and Austria was that the German youth of the time in general acknowledged and knew the facts about the Holocaust and the guilt of the German people -- but many of the Austrians did not and had not come to terms with what happened.

Like those Germans who denied the role of the ordinary German soldier in the crimes of WWII, many Americans deny their own complacency in the face of the crimes of our government and some troops in certain other countries like Iraq. Manning protested the crimes he saw to his commanding officer. It is my guess that he released the information to Wikileaks because he wanted the American people to know about those crimes.

I sympathize with any soldier who sees war crimes, is not assisted by his superior officer in bringing those crimes to light and manages to bring those crimes into the public view somehow. Had the German soldiers who were commanded to kill innocent, unarmed, submissive civilians been able to release the photos that this exhibition showed more widely, then at least the German people could not have denied their knowledge of those crimes. And now, thanks to the information we have from Wikileaks, neither can we.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 09:12 AM

175. I thought a defendant's motive was a legitimate factor in judgments

Judges typically look at motive and intent all the time. What's with this one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread