Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)

6. Because it's not important.

Reply to Luminous Animal (Reply #5)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 10:27 PM

Apr 2012

Really, it's not....when you argue that 'x' soldier downloaded WoW, but didn't get charged, but your soldier downloaded crap from Julian Assange and did get charged, then you have pretty much gone past the guilt phase and are in to sentencing mitigation.

As for allowing the damage reports....well, the judge has agreed to look at them. She hasn't agreed to turn them over to the defense. And allowing the State Department to file a brief in this matter means that Mr. Manning is not going to trial this summer.....

Finally....the grand jury request is laughable, and a sign of desperation.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

18 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Manning Case: 'Judge Orders US To Turn Over WikiLeaks Damage Reports' - AFP [View all] WillyT Apr 2012 OP

And Darth, JR, et al, walk freely. K&R Mnemosyne Apr 2012 #1

We paid a million for Cheney's heart. EFerrari Apr 2012 #2

It can sure get discouraging at times, can't it?! Mnemosyne Apr 2012 #3

Maybe if we can hold the truth, we can do the rest of it, too. EFerrari Apr 2012 #10

About this, I am pleased. Luminous Animal Apr 2012 #4

And the twitter universe is largely overlooking this: Luminous Animal Apr 2012 #5

Because it's not important. msanthrope Apr 2012 #6

Downloaded crap FROM Julian? What does that even mean? Luminous Animal Apr 2012 #7

I suggest you read the charges...and understand that Mr. Manning is charged, specifically, msanthrope Apr 2012 #9

Oh, I've read the charges. They do not mention Assange or Wikileaks. Luminous Animal Apr 2012 #11

The Article 32 did, as sufficiency to the elements of the crimes msanthrope Apr 2012 #12

Please post the text of the specific CHARGES against Manning that refer to Assange or Wikileaks Luminous Animal Apr 2012 #13

As I have suggested to you, if you read the charges, and follow along the specifics proved to the msanthrope Apr 2012 #14

Ahahaha! Nice. Because you can't. Because neither are mentioned in the charges. Luminous Animal Apr 2012 #15

Well, no. Neither is Al Qaeda, and yet, Mr. Manning is charged with aiding them. msanthrope Apr 2012 #16

Your words: "Mr. Manning is charged, specifically...with getting software from Assange Luminous Animal Apr 2012 #17

As I've suggested, understanding crim pro a little better might msanthrope Apr 2012 #18

So Manning isn't going to trial until the Fall, then, based on defense motions.... msanthrope Apr 2012 #8