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

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:12 PM

Judge Gives Bradley Manning Permission to Plead Guilty for Wikileaks Dumps

Source: Wired

By Kim Zetter
11.29.12
1:36 PM

... The terms would allow Manning to plead guilty to 7 of the 22 charges heís currently facing for allegedly leaking hundreds of thousands of classified government documents to the secret-spilling site in 2009 and 2010.

The 7 offenses together carry a total maximum prison term of 16 years in prison, presiding officer Col. Denise Lind said during a pretrial hearing at Fort Meade on Thursday, according to the Associated Press.

Manning hasnít formally submitted a plea yet; he was simply seeking approval from the court that the terms under which he contemplated entering a plea were acceptable ...

The plea would not dispose of the remaining charges, but it would let Manningís attorney focus his defense on fewer points of contention at trial next year ...

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/11/manning-plea-terms-accepted/

Read more: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/11/manning-plea-terms-accepted/

21 replies, 2857 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 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply Judge Gives Bradley Manning Permission to Plead Guilty for Wikileaks Dumps (Original post)
struggle4progress Nov 2012 OP
blackspade Nov 2012 #1
struggle4progress Nov 2012 #2
randome Nov 2012 #3
Comrade Grumpy Nov 2012 #4
blackspade Nov 2012 #7
greiner3 Dec 2012 #20
struggle4progress Dec 2012 #21
cstanleytech Nov 2012 #11
midnight Nov 2012 #5
struggle4progress Nov 2012 #6
Riftaxe Nov 2012 #8
msanthrope Nov 2012 #14
Bodhi BloodWave Nov 2012 #16
Kelvin Mace Nov 2012 #9
struggle4progress Nov 2012 #10
Kelvin Mace Nov 2012 #12
struggle4progress Nov 2012 #13
Kelvin Mace Nov 2012 #15
Bodhi BloodWave Nov 2012 #17
struggle4progress Nov 2012 #18
msanthrope Dec 2012 #19

Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:35 PM

1. I'm curious how this will play out.

I think it will have a definite chilling effect (beyond what is already happening) on whistle blowers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:06 PM

2. I'm sure the military will make every possible move to ensure that it has at least

some chilling effect on PFCs who might otherwise contemplate releasing three-quarters of a million restricted documents

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:08 PM

3. ...to foreign nationals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:18 PM

4. ...to all of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:47 PM

7. Along with everyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 11:19 AM

20. So let me see;

You are against one person, "releasing three-quarters of a million restricted documents," yet Bush's people can out an active and undercover CIA agent, an admitable felony, with impunity?

Is it the number, or the severity of the actions which you refer to?

I believe it is the latter.

In addition, Julian has said Wikileaks went over the emails, which they had in their possession for more than a month, and withheld the documents that mentioned known CIA type names.

Also, according to you, the Pentagon Papers would never have seen the light of the public's eye. Think about it!

Me thinks your outrage is misplaced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greiner3 (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 11:37 AM

21. Consider working on your reading comprehension skills

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:10 PM

11. Whistleblowers will be fine provided they blow the whistle the right way.

Even Manning from what I have read would have legally been in the clear if he had just provided the data to a member of congress or the senate or even to the inspector generals office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:21 PM

5. Obama just signed a new Whistle Blower law that I would assume would prevent this guilty plea from

being necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:35 PM

6. I'd suggest reading "Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012" before

making assumptions about its effects. It's now also known as Public Law 112-199. Here's the Thomas page:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas

You would want the enrolled version

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:50 PM

8. Because the US judicial system

embraces Ex post facto laws in your world?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:04 PM

14. Um, no. Mr. Manning did not choose to follow whistle blower laws, so he cannot

avail himself of its protections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #14)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 03:46 PM

16. Its fairly facinating how many people seem to ignore that tiny fact wouldn't you say? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:50 PM

9. Will the judge extend the same courtesy

to the people who tortured him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:09 PM

10. What's the evidence Manning has been tortured?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #12)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:51 PM

13. Juan Mendez never met with Manning. To my knowledge, he never personally

examined any of the places where Manning was held, nor did any staff assigned to him: he merely engaged in some correspondence regarding the Manning case. Moreover, if you actually read his report, rather than overblown press coverage of it, it is phrased entirely in generalities:

...The Special Rapporteur concludes that imposing seriously punitive conditions of detention on someone who has not been found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of his presumption of innocence. The Special Rapporteur again renews his request for a private and unmonitored meeting with Mr. Manning to assess his conditions of detention.

<pdf link:> http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2012/03/12/A_HRC_19_61_Add.4_EFSonly-2.pdf

Of course, those of us who are interested in an international climate conducive to human rights must be quite sympathetic to the Special Rapporteur's "request for a private and unmonitored meeting." And we will all agree with the Special Rapporteur that imposing seriously punitive conditions of detention on someone who has not been found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of his presumption of innocence. But the Special Rapporteur did not explicitly assert that "seriously punitive conditions of detention" had been imposed on Manning -- and this is because (in fact) the Special Rapporteur would have had no grounds for asserting "seriously punitive conditions of detention" had been imposed on Manning

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #13)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 03:26 PM

15. Gosh, I wonder why they wouldn't let him meet

with Manning privately. Perhaps they had something to hide that they were afraid Manning would spill? Perhaps they didn't want anyone seeing Manning physical/psychological condition? Why not give people free access to inspect the facilities and the conditions?

My choice of who to believe is the UN and Manning's lawyers, or people who routinely shove Mickey Finn suppositories up "detainees' asses and haul them around to "black sites" for "interrogation".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #15)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 03:48 PM

17. why exactly should Manning have been granted an exception to the normal rules regarding visitors? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #15)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 05:46 PM

18. (1) I have no objection to your decision to "believe" Juan Mendez: I do object to the constant

Last edited Fri Nov 30, 2012, 07:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Assangist misrepresentation of what Mendez wrote. I gave you the complete link upthread: Mendez made the generic statement imposing seriously punitive conditions of detention on someone who has not been found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of his presumption of innocence. Everyone with any decency can agree to that. But note that Mendez did NOT write something more concrete, such as "Manning has not been found guilty of any crime, but he did suffer seriously punitive conditions of detention, which is a clear violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of his presumption of innocence." Mendez did not write that because he himself decided to limit his investigation to mere correspondence

(2) From a purely human rights standpoint, of course, I think we agree that one has little choice except to support the request for a private meeting of the detainee with the human rights professionals in cases, where maltreatment in custody is alleged

(3) And sadly, the situation is really nothing new: following some doctrine of American exceptionalism, the US has often refused to apply to itself the standards it claims must be applied to the rest of the world. This was certainly the case with the black site interrogations of the Bush era, which seem to me unquestionably criminal. But the relation of those cases to the Manning case seems nebulous to me

(4) In the case of Manning, which involved a huge international data dump, with a plausible espionage component, it is really not that hard to understand why the persons overseeing the matter may not have been excited at the prospect of allowing unsupervised international access to Manning

(5) Manning will have his day in court. After carefully reading Coombs' filings on the alleged maltreatment of Manning, I have seen nothing justifying the overblown claims that Manning was tortured. I do believe that Quantico was unsuitable for long-term pretrial confinement, and in fact Quantico seems now to have been closed for that purpose

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 09:51 AM

19. Why should Manning get what my clients in jail and prison don't? And what stopped Mendez from

talking to David Coombs, Mr. Manning's lawyer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread