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

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 07:16 AM

Bradley Manning's Legal Duty to Expose War Crimes


Bradley Manning's Legal Duty to Expose War Crimes

Monday, 03 June 2013 09:29
By Marjorie Cohn, Truthout | News Analysis


The court-martial of Bradley Manning, the most significant whistleblower case since Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers, has begun. Although Manning pled guilty earlier this year to 10 offenses that will garner him 20 years in custody, military prosecutors insist on pursuing charges of aiding the enemy and violation of the Espionage Act, carrying life in prison. The Obama administration, which has prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all prior presidencies combined, seeks to send a strong message to would-be whistleblowers to keep their mouths shut.

A legal duty to report war crimes

Manning is charged with crimes for sending hundreds of thousands of classified files, documents and videos, including the "Collateral Murder" video, the "Iraq War Logs," the "Afghan War Logs" and State Department cables to Wikileaks. Many of the things he transmitted contain evidence of war crimes.

The "Collateral Murder" video depicts a US Apache attack helicopter killing 12 civilians and wounding two children on the ground in Baghdad in 2007. The helicopter then fired on and killed the people trying to rescue the wounded. Finally, a US tank drove over one of the bodies, cutting the man in half. These acts constitute three separate war crimes.

Manning fulfilled his legal duty to report war crimes. He complied with his legal duty to obey lawful orders but also his legal duty to disobey unlawful orders. ...........................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://truth-out.org/news/item/16731-bradley-mannings-legal-duty-to-expose-war-crimes



142 replies, 9564 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 142 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bradley Manning's Legal Duty to Expose War Crimes (Original post)
marmar Jun 2013 OP
idwiyo Jun 2013 #1
midnight Jun 2013 #2
tblue Jun 2013 #3
msanthrope Jun 2013 #7
7962 Jun 2013 #18
msanthrope Jun 2013 #24
think Jun 2013 #31
premium Jun 2013 #33
MattBaggins Jun 2013 #108
Recursion Jun 2013 #112
Jeff In Milwaukee Jun 2013 #137
msanthrope Jun 2013 #52
stevenleser Jun 2013 #121
G_j Jun 2013 #45
brooklynite Jun 2013 #51
LineLineLineLineLineReply ?
Aerows Jun 2013 #56
G_j Jun 2013 #58
brooklynite Jun 2013 #106
G_j Jun 2013 #113
brooklynite Jun 2013 #114
G_j Jun 2013 #117
brooklynite Jun 2013 #118
G_j Jun 2013 #119
sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #81
brooklynite Jun 2013 #105
sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #125
brooklynite Jun 2013 #134
AnalystInParadise Jun 2013 #135
sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #139
CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #122
tblue Jun 2013 #126
msanthrope Jun 2013 #55
G_j Jun 2013 #60
msanthrope Jun 2013 #66
G_j Jun 2013 #70
msanthrope Jun 2013 #72
G_j Jun 2013 #76
msanthrope Jun 2013 #84
G_j Jun 2013 #85
msanthrope Jun 2013 #88
brooklynite Jun 2013 #115
jeff47 Jun 2013 #93
TorchTheWitch Jun 2013 #74
msanthrope Jun 2013 #86
MattBaggins Jun 2013 #107
msanthrope Jun 2013 #109
tblue Jun 2013 #123
newfie11 Jun 2013 #8
jmowreader Jun 2013 #63
sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #87
jmowreader Jun 2013 #92
Pelican Jun 2013 #128
sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #138
Pelican Jun 2013 #140
AnalystInParadise Jun 2013 #129
Dragonfli Jun 2013 #120
SlimJimmy Jun 2013 #4
msanthrope Jun 2013 #6
SlimJimmy Jun 2013 #11
msanthrope Jun 2013 #12
SlimJimmy Jun 2013 #35
jmowreader Jun 2013 #68
msanthrope Jun 2013 #5
Chan790 Jun 2013 #13
7962 Jun 2013 #19
kentuck Jun 2013 #9
msanthrope Jun 2013 #14
libdude Jun 2013 #10
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #15
bvar22 Jun 2013 #104
MrScorpio Jun 2013 #110
go west young man Jun 2013 #16
duhneece Jun 2013 #17
randome Jun 2013 #21
cstanleytech Jun 2013 #26
duhneece Jun 2013 #49
Pelican Jun 2013 #71
cstanleytech Jun 2013 #111
7962 Jun 2013 #22
HangOnKids Jun 2013 #132
KoKo Jun 2013 #40
randome Jun 2013 #20
LuvNewcastle Jun 2013 #23
msanthrope Jun 2013 #25
LuvNewcastle Jun 2013 #28
msanthrope Jun 2013 #34
LuvNewcastle Jun 2013 #38
msanthrope Jun 2013 #41
treestar Jun 2013 #27
msanthrope Jun 2013 #29
SlimJimmy Jun 2013 #37
msanthrope Jun 2013 #39
bluedeathray Jun 2013 #30
think Jun 2013 #32
msanthrope Jun 2013 #36
Pelican Jun 2013 #43
G_j Jun 2013 #46
randome Jun 2013 #59
Pelican Jun 2013 #61
G_j Jun 2013 #65
Pelican Jun 2013 #67
think Jun 2013 #90
Pelican Jun 2013 #91
CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #124
Ikonoklast Jun 2013 #42
G_j Jun 2013 #48
SlimJimmy Jun 2013 #54
Ikonoklast Jun 2013 #64
Pelican Jun 2013 #53
think Jun 2013 #99
AnalystInParadise Jun 2013 #130
think Jun 2013 #141
xchrom Jun 2013 #44
William769 Jun 2013 #47
G_j Jun 2013 #50
marmar Jun 2013 #62
duhneece Jun 2013 #82
AnalystInParadise Jun 2013 #131
stevenleser Jun 2013 #83
premium Jun 2013 #89
G_j Jun 2013 #94
premium Jun 2013 #95
G_j Jun 2013 #96
premium Jun 2013 #97
G_j Jun 2013 #98
Egalitarian Thug Jun 2013 #101
Recursion Jun 2013 #57
Recursion Jun 2013 #69
ucrdem Jun 2013 #73
Recursion Jun 2013 #75
ucrdem Jun 2013 #77
Recursion Jun 2013 #78
ucrdem Jun 2013 #79
Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #80
Solly Mack Jun 2013 #100
indepat Jun 2013 #102
AnalystInParadise Jun 2013 #133
indepat Jun 2013 #142
jeff47 Jun 2013 #103
brooklynite Jun 2013 #116
railsback Jun 2013 #127
hack89 Jun 2013 #136

Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 07:27 AM

1. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 07:32 AM

2. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 08:00 AM

3. I wish Obama would pardon him.

He won't though. I hope Bradley catches a break somehow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 08:14 AM

7. Why should he be pardoned? He had the option of whistleblowing under the law, and he chose a

commercial enterprise.

Why should that be pardoned?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 08:50 AM

18. Good answer!! He could have exposed the few bad things

without exposing so much other intelligence and putting so many lives at risk. No telling how many were killed BECAUSE of him. The fact is, he had a gripe against the Army more than trying to expose a war crime. And he chose the wrong way to "get back" at them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #18)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:04 AM

24. I think he had personal motivations related to his interpersonal conflicts. Nothing

noble about it all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:19 AM

31. Maybe because the MSM was complicit in the coverup and ignored him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #31)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:30 AM

33. Bullshit,

 

he could have gone to any Congressman or Senator and turned over those docs., which would have been legal, instead, he choose to willy nilly turn over classified docs to a commercial entity, which was illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #33)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:59 PM

108. Then why isn't Ellsberg in prison?

Top Secret documents to a commercial enterprise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MattBaggins (Reply #108)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:15 PM

112. he was a civilian

He also read the documents he released

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #112)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 09:06 AM

137. And...

Because Ellsberg became the target of Nixon's plumbers, including illegal wiretaps and a break-in at the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist in attempt to obtain his medical records. When it became clear that any attempt to prosecute Ellsberg would cause even more damage as the Watergate scandal continued to unfold, the Nixon Administration abandoned its efforts to prosecute him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #31)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:20 AM

52. It wasn't any more legal for Manning to go to the NY Times than Assange...

and as for Mr. Manning's claims of what he did, I think you place too much faith in his supposed veracity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #31)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 01:22 AM

121. "MSM" had nothing to do with the options he had to report the few items of wrongdoing.

He had the inspector general options and he had the ability to go to a member of congress.

Unless you think Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich would have blown him off?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:58 AM

45. maybe because he essentially pardoned Darth Cheney?

and other criminals in high places?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #45)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:20 AM

51. Name a crime Cheney was culpable of...

He may have agreed with policies, but he never had authority to implement them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #51)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:22 AM

56. ?

What?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #51)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:24 AM

58. WTF?

not worth the time... Educate yourself

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #58)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:52 PM

106. I have...

...and while we could argue about whether the laws should be changed, I see no STATUTORY PROVISION on the Books today that you could clearly indict Cheney for.

President Obama hasn't called for his indictment.

Neither has Elizabeth Warren

Neither has Alan Grayson

Am I missing someone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #106)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:57 PM

113. Of course investigations are reserved for others

It will never happen. We all know that!
I'll bet the evidence is there. From the secret oil meetings, to the Office Of Special Plans, to Plame, to yellowcake, to torture and more.
As long as Cheney and the rest are not even being investigated, I'll stand up for Manning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/world/us-practiced-torture-after-9-11-nonpartisan-review-concludes.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1366141064-59d+74AzT3+0a3jFGpM9eQ

U.S. Engaged in Torture After 9/11, Review Concludes
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: April 16, 2013

WASHINGTON — A nonpartisan, independent review of interrogation and detention programs in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks concludes that “it is indisputable that the United States engaged in the practice of torture” and that the nation’s highest officials bore ultimate responsibility for it.

DOCUMENT: Constitution Project’s Report on Detainee Treatment
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/04/16/world/16torture-report.html?ref=world
Indisputable Torture (April 17, 2013)

The sweeping, 600-page report says that while brutality has occurred in every American war, there never before had been “the kind of considered and detailed discussions that occurred after 9/11 directly involving a president and his top advisers on the wisdom, propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our custody.” The study, by an 11-member panel convened by the Constitution Project, a legal research and advocacy group.

<>

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/etc/network.html

How Cheney aggregated power at key national security centers -- the Pentagon, State and White House -- and lists the positions his friends and allies have held during the time period leading up to the 2003 war in Iraq.

George W. Bush
President
2001-present

Dick Cheney
Vice President
2001-present


Defense Department

State
Department

Office of the Vice President

National Security Council

Donald Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
2001-present


Colin Powell
Secretary of State
2001-2005

"Scooter" Libby
Chief of Staff to the Vice President
2001-2005


Condoleezza Rice
National Security Advisor
2001-2005

Richard Armitage
Deputy Secretary
of State
2001-2005

David Addington
Counsel to the
Vice President
2001-2005


Stephen Hadley
Deputy National Security Advisor
2001-2005


Paul Wolfowitz
Deputy Secretary
of Defense
2001-2005


John Bolton
Under Sec. of State for Arms Control
2001-2005


William J. Luti
Special Advisor to the Vice President
2001-2002


Douglas Feith
Under Secretary for Policy
2001-2005


Stephen Cambone
Under Sec. for Intelligence
2003-present

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #113)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:08 AM

114. In other words, every single Democrat is complicit in a cover up...

......makes me wonder why you're hanging out at a pro-Democrat blog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #114)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:18 AM

117. you lost me

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #117)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:23 AM

118. "It will never happen. We all know that! "

No Democratic officeholder is calling for "it" to happen. Either every single one is much more ignorant than you are, or they're unwilling to, in which case they're complicit in keeping charges from being made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #118)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:46 AM

119. if you put it that way, I guess they are

of course there doesn't seem to be a shortage of Republican investigations into Democrats. It seems like one endless Whitewater. The Democrats don't manufacture fake "scandals" as far as I know.

But nobody wants another Iran/Contra or Watergate scale investigation into something that actually warrants investigation, do they? Very simply, that would mean uncovering some very serious
matters which no one wants to deal with.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #51)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:35 AM

81. Really? His buddy Libby covered for him in the Valerie Plame affair and took the fall by

'obstructing justice' iow, blocking the prosecutor, 'throwing sand in his eyes' from getting to Cheney. His conviction confirmed that the crime had been committed as alleged and witness testimony confirmed that it went all the way to the top. But the critical witness was Libby and he was not about to turn in his boss. For his 'loyalty' he never served his jail sentence.

And that is just one of the crimes he committed.

Cheney lied repeatedly on National TV and to Congress to start a war that has been disastrous for our troops, for this country and for Iraq.

The evidence of his lies is public. There is hardly a person on the face of the earth who does not believe he is a criminal, a war criminal, a traitor (see Valerie Plame again).

If the rule of law applied in this country and he was charged with the crimes he committed and the evidence presented against him, and witnesses were not too intimidated to testify to the truth about him, which would have happened IF we still abided by the rule of law, Cheney would spend the rest of his life in jail at the very least.

But we have no rule of law for war criminals in high places or or Wall St. criminals, so he walks free and continues to profit from his crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #81)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:47 PM

105. Point me to a law against lying...

...I'm not saying it's ethical or proper, but if politicians were indictable for lying, there wouldn't be many people left in Washington. Unless a politician is UNDER OATH, lying is not a crime, nor should it be.

.....and if you insist that it should be, show me an elected official of ANY ideological stripe who called for the indictment or impeachment of any member of the Bush Administration for "lying us into a war".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #105)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 03:01 AM

125. An elected official is always under oath, or didn't you know that? When one of them

violates that oath, especially on something as serious as sending our troops to war based on outright lies, they are guilty of a serious crime. Had Libby not covered for Cheney in his role in exposing an undercover agent, he could possibly have been charged with treason.

And if Cheney had been charged with ordering torture, which I'm sure you know is a crime, he would have been found guilty. He has admitted to that crime publicly. In his own words. If this country had the guts to prosecute men like Cheney, I have no doubt he would be convicted of that crime.

And if Cheney had been charged with violating his oath of office by lying this country into war, and the evidence presented of his role in the deceit which we saw plenty of during the ACORN case coming out of his 'shadow government', I have no doubt any jury would have found him guilty.

It's sad you think that it's okay for someone in his high position can commit a crime of torture, can lie a country into war, and that it is no big deal.

'High crimes and misdemeanors' are the charges Cheney should be subjected to. He lied with deadly results, under his oath of office. That is treason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #125)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 07:07 AM

134. They are under oath "to protect the Constitution"...

...whether lying facilitates that is an open question, but not a statutory one.

As as for a jury finding him guilty, WHAT IS THE STATUTE he's violating in doing so?

I'm not saying he didn't and I'm not saying it's right, I saying it's not illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #134)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 07:20 AM

135. ^^^THIS

 

People seem to confuse their emotional and moral compass for the process that creates and enforces laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #134)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:55 AM

139. You're seriously defending Cheney now? The Constitution is the Statute, the law of the

land, that was violated by Cheney when he lied to get this country into war. Since the Constitution is specific about when this country should get into a war, and Cheney took the oath to protect and defend the Constitution, that is what he violated. If he did not, a trial would have revealed that, wouldn't it? But when someone is suspected of a major crime and there is evidence that they have committed that crime, they are generally charged with the crime.

He has publicly stated 'I would do it again' wrt to ordering torture. I believe we have laws against torture. We certainly are a party to International laws against torture.

Here, let me make it simply for you. If someone hires a hitman to murder someone else, their spouse, boss etc even though they are nowhere near the scene of the crime themselves (and we know Cheney would never be found anywhere near a war zone) that person will be charged with murder.


Cheney has admitted that he ordered torture, and that he 'would do it again'. He also ordered the outing of Valerie Plame a crime of treason according to most legal experts. HE should have been charged with that crime. Instead others were able to cover for him, obstructing justice was the charge against them. Preventing the prosecutor from holding Cheney accountable by lying. Libby was convicted remember?

You are free to defend Cheney all you want, but the world knows who lied us into war, we SAW him lie, publicly, over and over again.

The man is a war criminal, undicted so far, but hopefully someone with the guts to do it will prosecute him one day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #51)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 02:48 AM

122. Fraud on the people of the United States - nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #51)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 03:09 AM

126. We don't have enough time!

Pick anything. Never mind, I'll start: That heartless lump of hate outed a covert CIA operative. He lied us into a war. He ordered and/or sanctioned torture, thereby countermanding the Geneva Conventions to which we are a signatory. He's also a manifest war profiteer.

POTUS Obama said he was looking forward not backward. Obviously he didn't mean it for everybody -- just the Bush Administration. Otherwise, Cheney might possibly have been indicted. But, NO. He's Barack Obama and he approves this crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #45)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:22 AM

55. What crime should Cheney have been charged with? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #55)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:27 AM

60. Ordering torture perhaps ?

the evidence most certainly exists, like it or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #60)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:33 AM

66. Well, the 'perhaps' part is the problem....while I would love to see Cheney behind

bars, there has to be an actual charge against him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #66)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:37 AM

70. facepalm.,

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10022732718

Report: Post-9/11 Torture “Indisputable” and “Unprecedented”

April 17, 2013 by John Light

A new report from an independent task force finds that the Bush administration committed torture. The decision to do so, made by top officials and the president himself, was unprecedented. “here is no evidence there had ever before been the kind of considered and detailed discussions that occurred after Sept. 11, directly involving a president and his top advisers on the wisdom, propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our custody,” writes the U.S. Constitution Project’s Task Force on Detainee Treatment.

The task force, an eleven-person team led by former Congressman Asa Hutchinson, a Republican and an undersecretary at the Department of Homeland Security during the Bush administration, and former Democratic Congressman James R. Jones, sought to piece together “an accurate and authoritative account of how the United States treated people its forces held in custody as the nation mobilized to deal with a global terrorist theat.” The New York Times called the report “the most ambitious independent attempt to date to assess the detention and interrogation programs.”

In the years since 2001, journalists, lawyers and activists have been unable to get the Central Intelligence Agency, Justice Department and Bush administration to state unequivocally that the interrogation tactics used on detainees constituted torture. The Obama administration chose not to commission an official study of interrogation and detention tactics, saying it was unproductive to “look backwards.” But it is “indisputable,” the report’s authors conclude, that torture occurred at Guantánamo, the C.I.A.’s so-called black sites and other war-zone detention centers.

<snip>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #70)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:53 AM

72. Okay---take the report, and tell me what you would charge Cheney with. I don't disagree

that torture happened, and I don't disagree that Cheney was complicit. And I wouldn't cry to see him behind bars. I just want a statute you would prosecute under.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #72)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:03 AM

76. ---

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2940091

Article 3 -- Geneva Conventions bars torture, cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, as well as outrages against the human dignity of prisoners of war, or POWs. Until recently it remained unclear whether the article applied to CIA interrogators, located overseas, who were questioning high-ranking members of al-Qaeda and other so-called “unlawful enemy combatants.” In July 2006, the Supreme Court ruled in its Hamdan decision that this article does indeed apply to top terror suspects detained in CIA-run prisons as well as at Guantanamo Bay. "Quoting Article Three is like quoting the Bible for international lawyers," says Peter Danchin, a Columbia University legal expert.

http://www.cfr.org/international-law/united-states-geneva-conventions/p11485

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #76)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:54 AM

84. Yes....that's great. Can you name a charge, though? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #84)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:57 AM

85. didn't you mean "quaint"?

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #85)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 12:01 PM

88. No...I mean, pontification aside, what would you have charged

Cheney with?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #76)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:11 AM

115. Not a Law...Geneva Convention is a treaty between nations...

...which don't include Al Qaeda (or any other terrorist group) and didn't include the Taliban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #60)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 01:44 PM

93. He was VP. He had no authority to order torture.

Part of his evil genius was placing himself in a position where he had no authority to order criminal actions, so he can't be legally responsible for those actions. The idiot he put in the oval office is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:02 AM

74. he isn't a whistleblower

A whistleblower reveals only that information that shows misconduct. Manning didn't do that. The vast majority of what he stole and gave to Assange to reveal did not show any misconduct, and he himself had no idea what it contained. I don't even know if anything at all that he stole showed any misconduct according to the law. That isn't a whistleblower - a label that Assange insisted he be referred to by the way - by any stretch of the imagination. Who knows why he stole all those documents, but it had nothing to do with whistleblowing. Clearly, his intent in stealing the vast majority of information and turning it over to be revealed he did not know himself what it contained or whether or not any of it contained any information concerning misconduct. Whatever his personal objective was it most certainly wasn't whistleblowing. By definition, he is not a whistleblower.

What he is is a thief. He knew that what he was doing was illegal and that he was not doing it with any intention of whistleblowing but for some personal reason of his own. As I understand it, he had to hack a password to get access to it as he did not have free access to either all or most of the documents he stole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TorchTheWitch (Reply #74)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:57 AM

86. I ask the Manning defenders how 74k email addresses and personal info of

servicemembers was supposed to whistleblow. What possible use could Wikileaks have for those email addreses, other than spam and appeals for Julian Assange's rape defense fund?













Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:56 PM

107. Isn't the NY Times a commercial enterprise?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MattBaggins (Reply #107)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:01 PM

109. Yes. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #7)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 02:54 AM

123. Because Obama said he stood with whistleblowers.

That's why I said that. There are several reasons he could use to justify a pardon, if he felt compelled to explain it. But I am not naive. I know it won't happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 08:23 AM

8. So do I. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:28 AM

63. He indiscriminately dumped every State Department cable for the last 50 yrs

Are we supposed to overlook that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #63)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 12:00 PM

87. We should have had that material made available to us right here in the US for the past 60

years. We have a right to know what our government is doing in our name. Too bad we didn't know what Reagan was up to in Central America eg. If we had real free press here, our government would be a lot more careful about the crimes they commit in our name. Such as Iraq eg.

Since when btw, did Democrats decide that the people have no right to know what their government is doing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #87)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 01:07 PM

92. Allow me to introduce a diplomatic term here...

Corruption of blood.

When you piss off a dictator, they don't just kill you. They go after your family, your wife's family, your friends' families. This tends to keep people from helping us.

Yes, the United States government has done horrific things. They've also done good things; you never hear about it when things go right because that doesn't sell newspapers or draw viewers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #87)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 03:45 AM

128. Since the foundation of this nation and every one before that...

 

The ability to speak in confidence to others in the diplomatic process is absolutely critical.

What reason do you think that you, personally, should have access to DoS assessments of foreign leaders? Why do you think that you should be privy to high level negotiations? That is the epitome of entitlement. You deserve to know because you are just that special and for no other reason?

Let me blunt, as everything else seems to just bounce off.

If other nations don't think that they can talk in private to us then that makes diplomacy more difficult. If diplomacy is more difficult then guys with guns, like me, get called in sooner and more people die.

That is what your boy Bradley has accomplished. He made the process of peace more difficult.

Bravo...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #128)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:43 AM

138. I don't believe anyone said that diplomats shouldn't be able to speak to each in confidence

No one as far as I know, revealed anything they said to each. What was revealed were emails etc. If something is top secret, it should be classified that way. Once someone puts anything in writing without classifying it, especially email, (and please note that Manning did not reveal any 'top secret' information, which he could have) the presumption should be there that it is not safe. As Gates said, no harm was done other than a little embarrassment.

I hope Gates is called as a witness in this trial, but I doubt it would be allowed unfortunately.

I know this, there is no way I would put ANYTHING in an email I would be worried about the world seeing. So clearly there was nothing in the released cables that they were particularly worried. Either that OR 1) we have very stupid people working for the State Dept, or 2) that material should have been classified as Top Secret. It wasn't.

As to what right we have to know what our government is doing? Are you serious?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #138)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 10:59 AM

140. Just to clarify...

 

You think it's ok to release Secret level classification but not Top Secret?

I would love to know the logic behind that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #87)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 04:07 AM

129. Well how about FDR and the Manhattan Project

 

Or FDR and the D-Day invasion
or FDR and the plans to invade Japan
or Harry Truman and the Manhattan Project
Or JFK and the Bay of Pigs before it happened
Or JFK and the U-2 flights during the Cuban Missile Crisis
Or Jimmy Carter and Desert One
This list can go on for quite a while

Again I ask are you freaking serious?

The people do not HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW ALL ACTIONS OF THEIR GOVERNMENT.....CLASSIFIED DATA EXISTS FOR MANY REASONS.......PICK UP A FREAKING BOOK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #3)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 01:18 AM

120. Every criminal torturer in the CIA, DOJ's OLC and war criminals Bush & Cheney

were held above the law by Obama and only required the statement "look forward" to avoid prosecution for far worse. Why all the hatred and need to torture and punish a whistleblower? The first statement is the answer to the question. To protect war criminals one must destroy the whistleblowers.

Why do so many here agree with war crimes yet hate so passionately one that would expose such crimes? I don't know, perhaps because a man they idolize lets war criminals walk and even praises them at their libraries while punishing those that oppose such crimes, the sin of emulation is my guess. Disgusting to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 08:01 AM

4. He should have utilized the Army IG or written to his Congressman. He did neither. His

obligation to report war crimes started with him doing one of those two things.

Manning fulfilled his legal duty to report war crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlimJimmy (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 08:12 AM

6. Any Congressperson would have sufficed, under the law. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 08:29 AM

11. That's true, I just presumed he would use his local representative to do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlimJimmy (Reply #11)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 08:32 AM

12. No--any Congressperson will do. That way, if Ted Cruz is your Senator, you can still

take it to Bernie Sanders.

He didn't want to do that. He wanted to hang with the cool kids at MIT and be a 'hacker.' A hacker so stupid he didn't delete his chat logs with either Lamo or Assange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #12)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:36 AM

35. I agreed with you. I just presumed he would have written to his local representative,

although as you have pointed out, he could have used Bernie Sanders or any other member of Congress, if he chose to. As to hm being *stupid*, that's a given. I have characterized in other threads his actions as being both sloppy and criminal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #12)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:35 AM

68. There's also a thrill-seeking aspect to espionage

He was basically daring them to catch him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 08:11 AM

5. One of the stupider articles published at Truthout--and that's really saying a lot.

Marjorie Cohn must think no other lawyers read Truthout.

She conveniently forgets that Manning had a duty to report to the IG or a member of Congress under the Military Whistleblowers Protection Act of 1988. His duty was not to give 700k records to a commercial enterprise. Now, granted, whistleblowing under the MWPA is a lot less glamorous, but it would have been the right thing to do.

I hope this woman doesn't have actual clients.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 08:32 AM

13. +1 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 08:50 AM

19. Ouch!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 08:25 AM

9. Are they secrets or are they embarassments?

Has he really exposed information that people did not know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #9)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 08:43 AM

14. Yes-- of particular concern is names and details of people

who worked with NATO forces against the Taliban..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8166084/Taliban-prepare-to-punish-WikiLeaks-Afghan-informers.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/08/02/taliban-seeks-vengeance-in-wake-of-wikileaks.html

Julian Assange simply didn't give a shit---

David Leigh and Luke Harding's history of WikiLeaks describes how journalists took Assange to Moro's, a classy Spanish restaurant in central London. A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. "Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it." A silence fell on the table as the reporters realised that the man the gullible hailed as the pioneer of a new age of transparency was willing to hand death lists to psychopaths. They persuaded Assange to remove names before publishing the State Department Afghanistan cables. But Assange's disillusioned associates suggest that the failure to expose "informants" niggled in his mind.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/18/julian-assange-wikileaks-nick-cohen





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 08:27 AM

10. Whistleblowers and

War Crimes. My question is who is driving this aggressive effort against whistleblowers in the Obama administration? Is this push from the President himself or from an advisor? It would seem that with the current public focus on drone strikes and in particular signature strikes, there would be more of a move of self imposed transparency, more support of encouraging whistleblowers to report violations of policies, procedures, rules, regulations, laws.
Since the United States is a signator to the international laws regarding war crimes and has recently referred to the Assad regime as being subject to potential war crime charges, it seems somewhat hypocritical to not investigate these possible alleged war crimes that Bradley Manning has brought to light or the recent issues regarding former President Bush and his administration. Should not Congress be investigating the possible war crimes related to signature drone strikes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 08:44 AM

15. There's proper procedure to report warcrimes, as well as a proper chain…

A proper chain to whom those crimes are supposed to be reported while in the performance of one's duties. There's few other flaws in this line of reasoning that will certainly exploited by the prosecution.

Such as the non-specific nature of the information that he released. Also, there's a false equivalence in comparing Manning to Daniel Ellsberg. The Pentagon Papers were meant to be historical documents compiled by Ellsberg research, information whose eventual purpose was to be made public… To be seen by Presidents, public officials, historians and even the general public.

After the government went out of it's way to hide that information, and the truth about the Vietnam War, Ellsberg (a civilian), was quite correct to leak his own specifically compiled information to the press.

Manning, on the other hand, did not compile the information he released, his role was only that of custodian. He had absolutely no way of knowing the complete extent of the information that he was responsible for securing. Also, that information was never meant to be made part of the public record without a thorough vetting and declassification process. Now whether or not that it would eventually become declassified is a moot point. Manning's transferral of that information to an unauthorized agent, Wikileaks, before the vetting process will certainly be problematic for his defense.

Also, as a military member, unlike Ellsberg, the civilian, he was bound by a certain set of rules that could not be applied to Ellsberg.

What Manning's defense needs to do is prove that his orders to secure and maintain the data under his custodianship were, in fact, illegal orders. That he also did everything within his power to report these crimes, as he perceived them, in both the proper manner and to the proper channels. Which would also call into question his qualifications as a valid witness. Was he there and observed the alleged war crimes in person? What were his qualifications to classify the information held on the information that he released AS war crimes? Also, his other actions and the persons that he's talked to are going be examined as well.

These are things that he most certainly will need to prove in his favor if he is going to win his defense.

All in all, Manning's acquittal will hinge upon his success or lack of success in either changing the definition of whistle-blowing to his favor, or validating that his actions were valid in violating the terms of his military duties as they stood, by proving that his actions did not damage the security of the US and most of all what were his intentions.

Did he do this out of expectations of personal gain? Did he release that information because of some personal vendetta that he held against the government?

These things are going to come out in his trial.

Will he be up to the task?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #15)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:42 PM

104. How has that been working for us so far?

The "Proper Procedures" seem to have covered up crimes,
not facilitated their investigation and prosecution.

I'm with Manning.
When the system is broken,
only a fool insists that the broken system be used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #104)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:47 PM

110. Of course, the system is broken

But in spite of that, it's not up to some unauthorized low ranking military service member to unilaterally throw the baby out with this bathwater.

A defense like that will certainly convict his ass.

Again, you're asking him to stick his neck out by being the single arbiter on whether crimes were committed through military action. The prosecution will simply argue that crimes weren't exposed in the files that Manning, without any authorization, transferred to a commercial enterprise that was never legally entitled to have in first place.

You may define that as a cover-up, but it's well within reason to classify the stuff in those tapes as not definitive one way or the other.

Manning's complete circumvention the system in the first place will certainly not be a defense that'll get him acquitted.

So, if you're yearning for a martyr, Manning will definitely be your man if he tries to go that route.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 08:44 AM

16. My post in the Guardian UK's comment section last night.

Manning is just a scapegoat in a dog and pony show. The real crimes were of course those committed by the Bush Administration and the neocons when they lied to the US and bugged and lied to the UN in order to invade Iraq thereby directly or indirectly killing over 250,000 Iraqi innocents and over 5500 coalition troops. What Manning did, weather right or wrong, has led to consequences infinitesimally small when compared to that fact.

Here we are 10 years after the US invaded and began multiple atrocities including strafing innocent Iraqis in their cars, Abu Ghraib, the made up Jessica Lynch story, leaving hundreds of thousands of rounds unattended so that eventually they were used as roadside bombs, 8 billion dollars falling off the back of a truck, putting frat boys in charge of rebuilding the countries infrastructure and failing at the task, the Reuters incident, the targeting and killing of reporters for Al Jazeera....the list goes on and on.

Yet what the powers that be want us all to take away from the whole debacle is that if you have a conscience and you use it while serving as a soldier and it effects "their" interests than they will punish you as they have done Bradley Manning.
They will put you in a cell for three years and turn up the AC and declare you "on suicide watch" while you await a day in court freezing with no clothes or blanket. The message is clear. Justice doesn't matter and our collective national conscience is as pure as our relationship with the brutal Saudi Arabian oil sheiks.

Now I know all the military "justice" hawks on this thread will swear by their military's action right or wrong and say he signed the contract so he's responsible for breaking his oath but at the end of the day military men the world over have broken their oaths and went over to the other side when their own side represented nefarious doings. I think those same hawks here would congratulate young german soldiers who broke ranks at the risk of losing their lives. The only difference this time around is they consider themselves and their government without blame. The Ricky Gervais sketch comes to mind where the Nazi's ask themselves "are we the baddies?" Well the answer is yes. Yes you are. You are in the eyes of the world not much better than the terrorist sickos you are killing. Technically Bin Laden won in some ways as he made you as messed up mentally as he was. We have stooped to his level.
The trail of Bradley Manning is actually a chance for America to show it has some moral fiber still. However, I think most of the world already knows what's coming, as nowadays, thanks to the internet and people like Julian Assange and Bradley Manning, the emperor has no clothes.

If we learned anything from the Arab Spring it is that one soldier can change the world. The embassy cables have helped bring about the fall of 3 despotic nepotistic regimes that incidentally were allied with the US and Britain in some way. Now more countries are turning against their autocratic rulers and shining a light on their rulers relationships with foreign governments ( in other words the USA). Personally I think Bradley Manning deserves the Medal Of Honor as the US military has been unsuccessful in two countries in effecting regime change whereas he's 3 for 3. One soldier with a computer vs the entire US MIC and trillions of dollars and he's made them look weak. That is why they must have him jailed for life in this show trial. In the future Bradley will be seen as a modern day Paul Revere or Patrick Henry and Bush, Cheney, Rummy, and the neocons will represent America's darkest days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to go west young man (Reply #16)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 08:47 AM

17. Revealing war crimes is the act of a hero.

The fact that Daniel Ellsberg supports Manning means alot to me in confirming my support for Manning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duhneece (Reply #17)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 08:54 AM

21. Rachel Maddow pointed out last night that Manning's document dump included...

...the names of hundreds of informants. Not a smooth move to jeopardize all those people's lives.



Stop looking for heroes. BE one.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duhneece (Reply #17)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:07 AM

26. What war crime would that be exactly?

The helicopter incident? I believe I read that wasnt a war crime unless they knew there were civilians there and did it on purpose.
But hey for the sake of argument lets pretend that was a war crime it doesnt give him and out for stealing and providing classified documents to wikileaks like the embassy memos.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #26)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:15 AM

49. We don't have to pretend it was a war crime

It was. So revealing that war crime makes him a hero in my eyes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duhneece (Reply #49)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:38 AM

71. You can keep saying it...

 

... but it doesn't make it so.

At that time, carrying weapons in that area made you a legitimate target. Walking around with guys carrying weapons is the exact same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duhneece (Reply #49)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:07 PM

111. Actually pretending is as close you are going to get

until charges are filed and a real judge and jury comes along and renders a verdict on that.
Also I will point out yet again you are ignoring other facts in your quest to glorify Manning which is he didnt just release the helicopter video but many other documents that were not even related to that incident.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to go west young man (Reply #16)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 08:56 AM

22. Before we go tossing out medals,

lets see what happens in those countries over the next couple years. My money is on things getting worse for the people, not better. But i could be wrong......
And if manning DID deserve a medal, it certianly would NOT be the CMH. Jeeze.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #22)


Response to go west young man (Reply #16)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:48 AM

40. Good Read....Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 08:53 AM

20. What 'unlawful orders' was he given?

I think most of us here on DU think the Iraq War was a travesty at best and a war crime at worst.

But who gave Manning any unlawful orders?



Stop looking for heroes. BE one.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 08:56 AM

23. There is no way this is espionage.

He didn't do this to help any enemies of the U.S. That is, unless you count the people of the United States as enemies. Too many people in our government do see us as enemies. To them, we should be as ignorant as possible and we should believe whatever bullshit they give us whenever we ask questions. Ultimately, the truth is their greatest enemy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LuvNewcastle (Reply #23)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:05 AM

25. He isn't being charged with espionage. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #25)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:10 AM

28. The article says he's being charged with violation of

the Espionage Act. So he supposedly violated that act, but he isn't being charged with espionage? What charge will get him sentenced to life if it isn't espionage?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LuvNewcastle (Reply #28)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:35 AM

34. No--he's UCMJ, so he isn't charged under the 'Espionage Act.' He's

charged under Article 134. Some specifications are that he violated the McCarran Act. This isn't the 'Espionage Act of 1917.' It's a different intent standard, meant to cover far more situations than the Espionage Act covers.

McCarran is far more reaching than the Espionage Act, and it's sloppy lawyering to conflate them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #34)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:47 AM

38. So the article is wrong.

Thanks for the clarification.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LuvNewcastle (Reply #38)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:51 AM

41. The writer of the article is sloppy. I think that's worse than being wrong in the case of

a criminal defendant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:07 AM

27. He simply dumped a lot of documents

Any exposure was accidental. And was accompanied with loss of operations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #27)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:12 AM

29. 700k records, and people pretend he read them. The more I find out about him,

the more spoiled and immature he seems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #29)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:42 AM

37. I've already shown in another thread that it would have taken him approximately ten years

to read all of the documents. Yet, there are still some folks that maintain it's quite believable that he read and understood the content of each of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlimJimmy (Reply #37)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:48 AM

39. The farthest left, donation cup in hand, have a reason for pushing that meme--it makes

Manning looks smarter, more in control, and less of Assange's dupe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:18 AM

30. Manning is going down

Despite not being privy to all the facts of the case.

Despite President Obama's abysmal record on whistle blowers.

Despite the "War Crime" nature of some of his (Manning's) releases.

Despite the fact that "War is the Crime".

Manning did not follow channels to claim whistle blower status. And he plainly committed acts that fit the definition of (most of) his accusations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluedeathray (Reply #30)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:24 AM

32. It's a sad day when Manning is the enemy and war crimes are ignored

Blame him for the way he exposed the mother fucking war crimes. But we are not even prosecuting the war criminals so fuck the crimes of Bradley Manning. Fuck the truth. Fuck justice.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #32)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:36 AM

36. Name the war crime. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #36)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:54 AM

43. Any moment now...

 

I'm sure...

Default answer seems to be "I personally think that the Iraq War was illegal, contrary to all law and precedent, and so that is what counts. Thus, any action taken as part of the war is a war crime"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #43)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:06 AM

46. Oh now we have a new meme here?

no war crimes were committed?


damn! where the fuck am I?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #46)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:25 AM

59. So all 195,000 troops that invaded Iraq are guilty, then?



Stop looking for heroes. BE one.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #46)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:27 AM

61. The point...

 

... is parroted around that what Manning did was ok because he exposed "War Crimes."

Ignoring the fact he released 100,000s of other documents...

Ignoring the fact that there are legitimate chains of reporting he chose not to use...

Ignoring the fact that it is far more likely that he was striking out at the organization he had failed at and felt had treated him unfairly...

Ignoring the fact that if he really gave a shit about peace or people he wouldn't have done what he did because it made diplomacy more difficult and thus the use of arms more likely...

Ignoring the fact that he knew that the information was to be distributed to the entire world to the benefit of a private organization in direct violation of the oath and promises he voluntarily made...

and of course ignoring the fact that in all of these threads about dipshit Bradley Manning, no one seems to be able to say what those war crimes were other than to talk in vague generalities and "If I were king of the world it would be a crime" whiny bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #61)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:32 AM

65. that was not the point of your post

you asserted Iraq war crimes are a made up fantasy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #65)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:35 AM

67. In the context of the conversation and thread...

 

... it was obvious that I was referring to Manning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pelican (Reply #43)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 12:07 PM

90. Does the killing of civillians & reporters caught on tape count?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #90)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 12:44 PM

91. Oh.. you mean this guy with an RPG?

 



or...

Are you referring to the armed men referenced in this interview with Assange which he admits to having edited out for maximum emotional and political effect?

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/260785/april-12-2010/exclusives---julian-assange-unedited-interview

See... some of us can read beyond what Julian Assange spoon feeds us and come to a reasonable conclusion based on evidence. Give it a go. I'm sure you'll find it thrilling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #36)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 02:58 AM

124. Quoting from Marjorie Cohn's article on Truthout today:

 

Section 499 of the Army Field Manual states, "Every violation of the law of war is a war crime." The law of war is contained in the Geneva Conventions.

Article 85 of the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions describes making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack as a grave breach. The firing on and killing of civilians shown in the "Collateral Murder" video violated this provision of Geneva.

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions requires that the wounded be collected and cared for. Article 17 of the First Protocol states that the civilian population "shall be permitted, even on their own initiative, to collect and care for the wounded." That article also says, "No one shall be harmed . . . for such humanitarian acts." The firing on rescuers portrayed in the "Collateral Murder" video violates these provisions of Geneva.

Finally, Section 27-10 of the Army Field Manual states that "maltreatment of dead bodies" is a war crime. When the Army jeep drove over the dead body, it violated this provision.


http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/16731-bradley-mannings-legal-duty-to-expose-war-crimes

How's that for starters?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #32)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:54 AM

42. Please define *exactly* what the "war crime" was.

People here keep parroting that phrase, but never seem to be able to back it up with actual facts.

If you are using Assange's deliberately edited video as the basis for your claim, you are being fooled the same way Breitbart fooled stupid people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #42)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:11 AM

48. Aside from little insignificant things like torture,

the war was a crime!

U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Robert L. Jackson was the Chief U.S. Nuremberg Tribunal Prosecutor.

On August 12, 1945, Justice Jackson stated the Tribunal’s conclusions prohibiting aggressive war.

“We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy."



edit: link to full statement:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/jack02.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #48)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:22 AM

54. Which one of the over 700k documents he released detailed a war crime? The answer is

"none of them". The only possible war crime he revealed was a tape from a helicopter attack. The problem with that is Assange heavily edited the tape, making it useless for that purpose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #48)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:30 AM

64. This is not proof. Sorry.

Show me where an international body has adjudicated that the war in Iraq was a war crime.

You are offering opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #42)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:21 AM

53. It's ok to be fooled...

 

... as long as you approve of the person pulling the strings apparently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #42)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 03:14 PM

99. In both the edited and unedited video

they fire upon unarmed people helping the wounded. I guess only stupid people feel it is wrong to fire on unarmed people helping the wounded.

But hey when the rules of engagement are classified and the rules opened up so killing civilians isn't a high priority I also guess nothing can be considered a war crime. This must be how you justify the killing of the unarmed men assisting the wounded as well as the children getting wounded.



February 05, 2008
Did Rumsfeld Authorize War Crimes?

The Secret Rules of Engagement in Iraq
by STEPHEN SOLDZ

Wikileaks has obtained the long kept secret Rules of Engagement (ROE) for U.S. troops in Iraq. This document sets out the rules guiding authorized U.S. troop actions in that occupation. While the Wikileaks document dates from 2005, as these ROEs generally change slowly the rules for today are likely similar, though we can’t be sure, of course, to what extent more recent ROE’s differ.
Among several interesting nuggets in the ROE, it provides indications that U.S. attacks likely to result in civilian deaths required authorization at the top of the Pentagon, by the SECDEF (Secretary of Defense). Thus, the ROE states repeatedly; "If the target is in a HIGH CD area, SECDEF approval is required." And what is the definition of a High Collateral Damage area? The ROE contains a set of explicit definitions of its terms. There we find High Collateral Damage Targets defined as:

"Those targets that, if struck, have a ten percent probability of causing collateral damage through blast debris and fragmentation and are estimated to result in significant collateral effects on noncombatant persons and structures, including:

(A) Non-combatant casualties estimated at 30 or greater;

(B) Significant effects on Category I No Strike protected sites in accordance with Ref D; (

C) In the case of dual-use facilities, effects that significantly impact the non-combatant population, including significant effects on the environment/facilities/infrastructure not related to an adversary’s war making ability; or

(D) Targets in close proximity to known human shields."

~snip~

As we have seen repeatedly, from the numerous roadblock killings of civilians to the Haditha massacre, this ROE authorization to use force can be used to provide cover for virtually any civilian killings. The ROE suggests that preventing such deaths was low on the priority list of those officials writing the rules of engagement for the occupation. Even so, a military study found that less than half of US occupation soldiers would report a unit member for violating an ROE.

Full article:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/02/05/the-secret-rules-of-engagement-in-iraq/


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #99)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 04:42 AM

130. Bloody fucking Christ

 

I will post this one more time. The van full of civilians became a legitimate target the SECOND it rushed into the free fire zone that was made a LEGAL free fire zone by people in civilian clothes carrying weapons. AK-47's and RPG's are weapons that will get you killed in that part of Baghdad on that day if you are carrying them and are not part of the US military or Iraqi police and Iraqi military. It doesn't freaking matter if the civilians in the van were transporting 101 Dalmatians, they became LEGAL targets when the chose to enter the free fire zone near Rustimayiah that day. I have been in Iraq on several tours and saw more than a handful of incidents like that. The ENTIRE FREAKING REASON the Pilot asks for PERMISSION is because the Overall Commander is conferring with his JAG officer (Laws of War LAWYER) to make sure that the target in question is a legit target. That video feed is also playing in the TOC while the helicopter is circling asking for permission to fire. The fucking JAG officer is the one that says it is legal or illegal to fire. Guess why they didn't shoot the unarmed guy crawling around? BECAUSE that is an ACTUAL WAR CRIME. The JAG officer would have had them arrested when they landed, had they done that. What they did was ask for permission to shoot the van that was removing wounded insurgents. The JAG officer, determined the van was a LEGAL TARGET and gave the commander permission to shoot. The commander then gave the Apache Crew the authorization to fire. IT WAS AS LEGAL AS BUYING A BEER ON YOUR 21st birthday............THERE WAS NO WAR CRIME FROM THAT VIDEO......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnalystInParadise (Reply #130)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 11:46 AM

141. I'll respect the opinion of the soldier who rescued the wounded children

from the minivan over yours any day of the week in regards to this incident sir. Ethan Mccord, the ranger who rescued the wounded children had this to say about actions like that:



In fact Ethan McCord has joined those supporting Bradley Manning:

http://www.bradleymanning.org/press/supporters-of-wikileaks-soldier-plan-mass-demonstration-at-ft-meade-june-1

I already posted that the rules of engagement were classified by Rumsfeld and watered down so that the US rules pretty much allowed murdering bystanders. The Geneva convention on the other hand is not a classified piece of shit pseudo doctrine created by Bush's cronies that changes the laws to condone pathological exploitation of the rules.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/02/05/the-secret-rules-of-engagement-in-iraq/

Rummy and company used a classified made up and adulterated set of rules to justify the killings. But the Geneva convention does not nor should it condone the activities shown in the rescue attempt of the wounded man. One can use any twisted logic they like to justify the killings but if people are honest with themselves they know those men were fucking murdered.


Bradley Manning's Legal Duty to Expose War Crimes

~snip~

Section 499 of the Army Field Manual states, "Every violation of the law of war is a war crime." The law of war is contained in the Geneva Conventions.

Article 85 of the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions describes making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack as a grave breach. The firing on and killing of civilians shown in the "Collateral Murder" video violated this provision of Geneva.

Article:
http://truth-out.org/news/item/16731-bradley-mannings-legal-duty-to-expose-war-crimes



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:57 AM

44. du rec.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:11 AM

47. I posted this in Good Reads

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:16 AM

50. I cannot fucking believe

there are people here defending Bush and Cheney's war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #50)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:27 AM

62. The last five years have proven that some will defend anything......


...... if it at all reflects poorly on a Democratic administration. Cognitive dissonance on steroids.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #50)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:37 AM

82. I know-It's like an alternate universe

"...An Army intelligence officer stationed in Kuwait, the 23-year-old Manning - outraged at what he saw - allegedly leaked tens of thousands of State Department cables to the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks. These cables show U.S. officials covering up everything from U.S. tax dollars funding child rape in Afghanistan to illegal, unauthorized bombings in Yemen. Manning is also accused of leaking video evidence of U.S. pilots gunning down more than a dozen Iraqis in Baghdad, including two journalists for Reuters, and then killing a father of two who stopped to help them. The father's two young children were also severely wounded.

"Well, it's their fault for bringing kids into a battle," a not-terribly-remorseful U.S. pilot can be heard remarking in the July 2007 "Collateral Murder" video...."

http://www.alternet.org/story/150157/bradley_manning_humiliated_and_abused%3A_why_is_exposing_a_war_crime_more_dangerous_than_committing_one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duhneece (Reply #82)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 04:47 AM

131. That article is wrong on basic facts

 

Manning was not an officer, Manning was a private..........

Manning was not in Kuwait, Manning was a FOB HAMMER, east of Baghdad, Iraq

Manning did not release tens of thousands of documents, he release hundreds of thousands.....

And The Collateral Damage video does not show a war crime, it shows Apache pilots CAREFULLY asking for permission to engage a legal target, in this case armed men in Baghdad.........

That article is wrong on so many basic things.........Dispute that please.

Edit: Also Haditha was the Marines not the Army....another basic fact wrong. I won't excuse Haditha, but I also can't trust an article that gets so much simple information wrong. At least pretend to do some research whomever wrote that article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #50)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:42 AM

83. No one did that. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #50)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 12:04 PM

89. Kindly show us one person here

 

defending the Bush/Cheney war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #89)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 01:50 PM

94. More accurately, defending the legality

of the Bush/Cheney war of aggression, torture etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #94)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 01:54 PM

95. That's much different from what you initially said.

 

And I still don't see anyone defending the war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #95)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 02:01 PM

96. ok, so it was legal?

you keep asserting that Cheney did nothing illegal, that there were no crimes. That sort of feels like a defense to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #96)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 02:07 PM

97. IMO?

 

No, but no governing body has ruled it illegal yet.
Show me one post where I asserted that Cheney did nothing illegal, that there were no crimes?
You can't, I never once said anything close to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #97)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 02:18 PM

98. sorry

that was someone else in the conversation. it wasn't about Cheney specifically

but you did say,
Default answer seems to be "I personally think that the Iraq War was illegal, contrary to all law and precedent, and so that is what counts. Thus, any action taken as part of the war is a war crime"


contrary to all law and precedent?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #50)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 04:26 PM

101. The result of looking forward. It's all fine now that the blue jerseys are the perpetrators. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:23 AM

57. If only he had exposed some. That would help his case.

As it is, he's in a pretty bad situation...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 10:36 AM

69. I call bullshit on the OP

The "Collateral Murder" video depicts a US Apache attack helicopter killing 12 civilians

Nope. It does no such thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #69)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:01 AM

73. It blames Obama for a "war crime" in the last paragraph and that's all the law it needs:

Obama himself has also violated Manning's presumption of innocence, saying two years ago that Manning "broke the law." But although the Constitution requires the President to enforce the laws, Obama refuses to allow the officials and lawyers from the Bush administration who sanctioned and carried out a regime of torture - which constitutes a war crime under Geneva - to be held legally accountable. Apparently if Bradley Manning had committed war crimes, instead of exposing them, he would be a free man, instead of facing life in prison for his heroic deeds.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/16731-bradley-mannings-legal-duty-to-expose-war-crimes


Truthout!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #73)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:03 AM

75. Name me one document Manning released related to torture

Go for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #75)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:14 AM

77. The Kenyan despot isn't torturing Bradley?

I thought it was obvious. . .




-------------
p.s. this is intended as gentle irony and not directed personally to anyone

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #77)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:22 AM

78. wow, that mask fell off with a clang... (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #78)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:30 AM

79. and right on my big toe!

Any slip and fall attorneys in the house?


p.s. the point I was getting at was that the whole thing is a pile of crap that conveniently blames Obama for sundry Bush-Cheney outrages and therefore needs no other logic. Old story. But yes, in my view the last paragraph is as fantastical i.e. crapola-filled as the rest. Sorry about the confusion!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:31 AM

80. The guys who murdered the civilians walk free while the guy who exposed them is on trial.

Just makes me want to wave a flag and shout USA! USA!

Not to mention the criminals who started and perpetuated the slaughter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 03:20 PM

100. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 05:01 PM

102. Three separate wars crimes associated with one attack: wonder if there were others?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to indepat (Reply #102)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 04:52 AM

133. What are the three war crimes?

 

Shooting Armed men is no war crime

Shooting a vehicle attempting to remove wounded armed men is not a war crime

Please tell me how I am wrong and also what the third thing is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnalystInParadise (Reply #133)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 01:59 PM

142. A war of aggression is a war crime under international law. All that follows in commission of a war

of aggression is viewed in that context.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 06:58 PM

103. Lying for political reasons is bad.

Republicans have spent decades claiming there are welfare recipients who drive Cadillacs. They keep that lie going because it serves their political purposes. But it's still a lie, and it's wrong.

The same is true for Manning. He was not a whistleblower. There were no war crimes in the information he released. But Manning's supporters keep lying about because it serves their political purposes.

"Collateral Murder" was legal. Wikileaks even pointed out the guy carrying an AK-47. His presence makes the attack legal during a war. And the fact that the attacks like this are legal in a war should be a big reason to be against war.

As for the rest, what war crime was revealed when Manning released Castro's favorite cigar? Or the names of thousands of people handing over intelligence to the US?

Finally, Manning's supporters keep saying lines like "Manning fulfilled his legal duty to report war crimes.". This is also a lie. If he had His duty would be to report the crimes to his superiors, or the DoD's inspector general, or any member of Congress. Instead, he handed over the documents to Wikileaks.

Lying for political gain is wrong. No matter which "side" is lying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #103)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 12:14 AM

116. I agree that it's "wrong"

....but it's not illegal, unless it's under oath in a legal proceeding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 03:35 AM

127. NOT A WHISTLEBLOWER

 

Again. Ellsberg is a whistleblower. Manning has personal issues..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 07:51 AM

136. Bradley Manning's Legal Duty to follow the Military Whistleblower Protection Act

He would have been protected if he had simply followed the law.

The Military Whistleblower Protection Act, Title 10 U.S.C. 1034, as amended, prohibits interference with a military member’s right to make protected communications to members of Congress; Inspectors General; members of DoD audit, inspection, investigation or law enforcement organizations; and other persons or organizations (including the chain of command) designated by regulation or administrative procedures. A protected communication is any lawful communication to a Member of Congress or an IG, as well as any communication made to a person or organization designated under competent regulations to receive such communications, which a member of the Armed Services reasonably believes reports a violation of law or regulation (including sexual harassment, unlawful discrimination, mismanagement, a gross waste of funds or other resources, abuse of authority, or a substantial or specific danger to public health or safety.



http://www.ig.navy.mil/complaints/Complaints%20%20%28Reprisal%20Military%20Whistleblower%20Protection%29.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread