General Discussion

aristocles

(594 posts)

6. War crimes are NOT crimes against the Constitution

Reply to tk2kewl (Original post)

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 11:11 AM

Jun 2013

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

81 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution ... [View all] tk2kewl Jun 2013 OP

There is also an obligation nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #1

Nadin, don't you know that since 2001 the Geneva Conventions CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #8

I remember that nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #9

if he uncovered war crimes, why not just release those cables? arely staircase Jun 2013 #2

Why did Ellsberg release all those papers and not just the ones that sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #3

^^^This^^^. Wish I could rec your post to infinity - n/t CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #4

irrelevant arely staircase Jun 2013 #5

OK, so Ellsberg released way more Pentagon Papers than he needed to to CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #13

daniel ellsberg will not be deciding manning's fate arely staircase Jun 2013 #19

You're begging the question which was whether Ellsberg releasing more than CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #25

introducing ellsberg at all is a red herring arely staircase Jun 2013 #29

Oh, please. Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers' precedent have CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #33

so his lawyers will be talking about ellsberg at his trial? arely staircase Jun 2013 #35

Hell, I hope his lawyers call Ellsberg to the stand. That way, we CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #39

yeah, that should work arely staircase Jun 2013 #40

Your laughter at what most concede is a kangaroo court where CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #45

it isn't a kangaroo court just because the the defendant's case arely staircase Jun 2013 #53

If by most you mean a tiny few who don't understand law... Pelican Jun 2013 #72

Indeed, sulphurdunn Jun 2013 #55

Manning did not have a TS clearance. He didn't have access to TS information. (nt) jeff47 Jun 2013 #21

Oh, Manning most certainly did have TS clearance. Manning CHOSE to release CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #28

Go right ahead and provide that link. jeff47 Jun 2013 #63

It seems he did have a TS/SCI clearance. premium Jun 2013 #67

Read the source they got that from. jeff47 Jun 2013 #69

You are correct, premium Jun 2013 #71

War crimes are NOT crimes against the Constitution aristocles Jun 2013 #6

When the U.S. signs an international treaty (like, say, the CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #10

Quite simply wrong. aristocles Jun 2013 #14

See my post as amended: CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #15

You are correct. I stand corrected. aristocles Jun 2013 #20

really? tk2kewl Jun 2013 #31

kick & recommended. William769 Jun 2013 #7

Honoring his oath was not a war crime. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #11

What is the benefit of him serving a few years in the brig? nt ZombieHorde Jun 2013 #78

Military can't function if PFCs feel that they can overrule geek tragedy Jun 2013 #79

. blkmusclmachine Jun 2013 #12

Didn't he also have an obligation to obey US law? hack89 Jun 2013 #16

The US has protections for Whistle Blowers. Doesn't the Government have an sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #22

Yes - but Manning first had the obligation to obey the whistleblower laws hack89 Jun 2013 #27

Then the question would be 'why did he not go to Congress'. I believe he explained sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #37

When you have to go back 42 years to justify Manning's actions hack89 Jun 2013 #41

Do elected officials 'have to try to follow the law'? sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #52

New York Times Co. v. United States would apply to Wikileaks, not Manning hack89 Jun 2013 #57

And the same elements that got Ellsberg's case dismissed exist here and, according sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #70

How can you get so many basic facts wrong? hack89 Jun 2013 #75

He had an obligation to follow the guidelines MineralMan Jun 2013 #30

He had an obligation to abide by his oath which he tried to do. Why didn't Ellsberg sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #42

That very oath also requires following the UCMJ. MineralMan Jun 2013 #47

Technical note: Ellsberg did go to Congress first but was blown off. Likewise, Manning did CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #48

And if this was only about that Collateral Damage video he probably would not be charged now however cstanleytech Jun 2013 #59

Dispelling a myth. Manning took the Collateral Damage video CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #23

He still had other legal options. hack89 Jun 2013 #34

"He made a poor choice" - He made a choice in the interests of CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #36

Then he made a principled choice and is willing to pay the price of this actions. hack89 Jun 2013 #38

Yes, he made a principled choice and is willing to pay the price for CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #43

Funny how we ignore the 'legal obligations' of our elected officials in this country. Can you sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #46

They both can be crimes. hack89 Jun 2013 #56

Maybe atreides1 Jun 2013 #49

An investigation did occur... Pelican Jun 2013 #54

Then we need to dispell another mith jeff47 Jun 2013 #74

JAG Web Site 4Q2u2 Jun 2013 #80

Thats what the "Oath Keepers" say too. Historic NY Jun 2013 #17

No, he wasn't. He had a dual obligation here. He violated one of them. stevenleser Jun 2013 #18

Manning did not reveal any war crimes. jeff47 Jun 2013 #24

Please provide a link to the supposed Wikileaks pointing to "the guy with an AK-47". Otherwise, CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #32

Watch the video they labeled. They label and draw a line to the AK-47. (nt) jeff47 Jun 2013 #65

Wikileaks pointed out CAMERA EQUIPMENT. If what was revealed in that video was sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #51

The military probably classified it I bet because they knew they screwed up and they were cstanleytech Jun 2013 #62

Well, killing people isn't a mistake. And once it is known that two of the people killed sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #76

No one is arguing that Manning was required to obey a law to coverup a war crime though. cstanleytech Jun 2013 #77

Wilileaks pointed out two things: The camera, and an AK-47. jeff47 Jun 2013 #68

The UCMJ is in that oath, too, MineralMan Jun 2013 #26

All 750,000 documents were war crime related hmm? Pelican Jun 2013 #44

Sorry- I disagree. James48 Jun 2013 #50

I took that oath a long time ago bluedeathray Jun 2013 #58

no doubt tk2kewl Jun 2013 #60

If he'd handed the documents to the Government of China, would he have been as honorable? brooklynite Jun 2013 #61

Yeah, he was honoring his conscience. Rozlee Jun 2013 #64

a sad truth tk2kewl Jun 2013 #73

insert: Rosco P. Coltrane Puzzledtraveller Jun 2013 #66

K&R idwiyo Jun 2013 #81