Reply #168

In the discussion thread: Pfc. Bradley Manning offers guilty plea in Wikileaks case [View all]

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 01:53 PM

Ken Burch (31,253 posts)

168. The UCMJ cannot be privileged above conscience.

Why would any non-reactionary EVER take an absolute "the law is the law" position? The law is not neutral and it will never treat the poor, the powerless, and the victims of brutality as equals with the rich, the powerful, and the brutalizers.

We have to retain the right to put conscience first...a law-first world will be a world of savagery.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

190 replies	Author	Time	Post
Pfc. Bradley Manning offers guilty plea in Wikileaks case [View all]	Freddie Stubbs	Nov 2012	OP
I wonder if this is all about trying to set up Manning to	avebury	Nov 2012	#1
No, it's about Manning. Period. IMO.	randome	Nov 2012	#3
Man. That sounds like a prepared statement.	loudsue	Nov 2012	#4
The sheer volume of material means he didn't look too closely at them.	randome	Nov 2012	#5
What a coincidence, the sheer volume of redacting also means the	cprise	Nov 2012	#12
Who the hell is Bradley Manning to be making these decisions?	randome	Nov 2012	#17
I think your post should note that it is Manning's defense attorney that is pushing the gender	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#21
Conduct unbecoming is a pretty serious charge.	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#25
I am of the opinion that you had an unstable young man, who had many	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#28
You may very well be right.	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#29
I doubt, however, that he is a condescending hypocrite who selectively ignores his own tagline	cprise	Nov 2012	#84
Manning had the choice to tell Kucinich, Sanders, or Franken, and he would have been	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#88
Thats your opinion. He took it to the Fourth Estate instead	cprise	Nov 2012	#100
Whistleblowing in general is a precarious undertaking.	Smarmie Doofus	Nov 2012	#102
Shit. Even I would have taken the Kook over the 4th Estate. nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#103
That's a great response	cprise	Nov 2012	#57
+1. n/t	Smarmie Doofus	Nov 2012	#60
As has been pointed out, he could have used the Military Whistleblowers Protection Act.	randome	Nov 2012	#61
"Not that there's anything wrong with that"	demwing	Nov 2012	#173
You don't know what you are talking about.	MrMickeysMom	Nov 2012	#183
Well, the sheer volume, and his written statements to Lamo indicate that he could not	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#16
I have recalibrated my concept of 'sheer volume' to the warrantless wiretapping	cprise	Nov 2012	#68
Okay..but that has nothing to do with the fact that Manning could not have possibly read	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#77
He didn't just dump it out on the Internet, either	cprise	Nov 2012	#93
All of which he can argue at his sentencing--that he took special care while breaking the law. nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#107
Also should mention only Wikileaks had a safe tech infrastructure for whistleblowing	cprise	Nov 2012	#172
I really should use the sarcasm smilie more often. nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#175
You know what would be fantastic. If you chose to learn what Manning actually did	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#9
What you say may be true	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#18
He had the option of turning stuff over under the Military Whistleblowers Protection Act of 1988--	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#20
You are correct	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#23
Well, sadly, if he had just googled more, he could have used the Military Whistelblowers Protection	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#26
I agree	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#27
No, he did not. He had already reported war crimes and had been told to shut up about	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#39
Care to document that assertion?	hack89	Nov 2012	#44
I see you know nothing about this case as I suspected. If you have to ask me what	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#49
So you can't document them? Why not simply say so?	hack89	Nov 2012	#52
Then enlighten us please. What did Manning do before he decided that reporting war	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#54
Nothing as far as I can see - that is why you need to substantiate your assertion	hack89	Nov 2012	#70
He did nothing??	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#72
Yet you seem completely incapable of providing that "public" information.	hack89	Nov 2012	#74
She needs to send it on to Manning's attorneys---they seem to have missed it. nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#78
Your tactics are transparent and very, very old and jaded. You clearly have	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#79
So you lied about Manning reporting war crimes to his chain of command?	hack89	Nov 2012	#86
Now you're getting desperate. Lol!	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#89
So you expect me to prove a negative?	hack89	Nov 2012	#90
What I expect is simple. When someone sets themselves up as qualified to	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#94
You make up shit and then claim that as an "expert" you can't be challenged.	hack89	Nov 2012	#95
Please post what 'shit' I made up. And try to calm down. You don't know anything about	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#98
You said that he informed his chain of command about war crimes	hack89	Nov 2012	#99
So his claim that his chain of command ignored him is at the center of his defense .. oh wait.	hack89	Nov 2012	#97
Then educate by linking to something	treestar	Nov 2012	#115
Have you asked your friends to produce something to show that any investigation	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#140
You're unable to link to anything	treestar	Nov 2012	#145
Kindly show us where Manning used the Military Whistleblowers Protection Act of 1988, as you claim?	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#48
Kindly read my comment again and show me where I said he did.	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#51
So you cannot document the legal steps Manning took? Why not just admit that? nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#53
Strange, did you just copy and paste Hack's comment which I just responded to?	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#55
No, I think great minds think alike. Still waiting for you to document your claim, though. nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#64
Exactly what is it that you do not know about this	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#71
Again, you aren't documenting your claim, but are expecting others to do it for you.	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#75
Here is information on it	treestar	Nov 2012	#177
This is getting ridiculous. Please read the thread as you clearly have not, nor have you	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#186
Right and wrong mean nothing in today's DU	Ash_F	Nov 2012	#81
Please link to the revelations of child sex trafficking	treestar	Nov 2012	#178
There's no way he read 491,000 War Logs. That's not even the hundreds of thousands of cables.	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#19
Horse shit. Condemning Manning is not supporting Bush	hack89	Nov 2012	#30
Of course it is. Protecting our war criminals is of primary importance in this society	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#35
Manning should have followed US whistleblower laws	hack89	Nov 2012	#37
Sabrina has an excellent point about war criminals that YOU ignore	cprise	Nov 2012	#63
I have no problem with him whistleblowing war crimes	hack89	Nov 2012	#73
What a ridiculous suggestion. Name ONE just ONE Whistle Blower who was protected by	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#188
If he choose the path he is on then he understood the consequences.	hack89	Nov 2012	#190
Indeed...	MrMickeysMom	Nov 2012	#184
Said the poster who can demonstrate no knowledge of this...	MrMickeysMom	Nov 2012	#180
Partly that but it's mostly to protect the Bush war criminals who were exposed in the	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#15
Catch 22	FiveGoodMen	Nov 2012	#32
Many of the world's worst criminals are here in the US	cpwm17	Nov 2012	#33
kick	navarth	Nov 2012	#2
Hopefully his willingness to admit to lesser charges will get dismissals on the others.	freshwest	Nov 2012	#6
+1	wtmusic	Nov 2012	#8
Any accepted plea will. nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#14
He exposed Bush war crimes. Too bad just about everyone has covered up for Cheney,	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#10
The only way to bring Bush and Cheney to trial would be to have certain conditions on the ground.	freshwest	Nov 2012	#38
Good post. I have only relatively recently discovered the lack of justice for many	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#47
He could have exposed them legally	treestar	Nov 2012	#116
He did expose them legally. He was ignored. Then became a Whistle Blower which he	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#139
If he exposed them under the Whistle Blower Act	treestar	Nov 2012	#146
Okay, I'll play, again.	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#151
You just claimed flat out that Manning used the WB act	treestar	Nov 2012	#158
Um, no, I did no such thing, I said he used what was legally available to him, he	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#161
Did he use the Military Whistle Blower Protection Act?	treestar	Nov 2012	#179
What, no apology for being so wrong? And the question as to why has been	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#182
Well, his defense was correct to delay trial, time after time---	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#11
The oath he took convicted him. No way to get that job without promising to NOT do what he did.	freshwest	Nov 2012	#41
He could have used the Military Whistleblwoers Protection Act of 1988--but that would not have	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#45
Please post a link to information on just ONE whistle blower who 'received the	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#56
Ellsburg. I think Manning thought he was going to be the next Ellsburg.	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#66
Lol, thanks, I had a feeling you have to go way back in history to find one.	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#69
(Facepalm) Sabrina, that you don't know that Ellsburg couldn't have used the	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#76
I'm having a hard time distinguishing you and Hack from each other frankly. Sorry	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#80
Manning could have gone to Kucinich, Sanders, Franken...he went to Assange. That	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#91
Yawn!	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#96
Again, kindly cite when and where Manning reported crimes to his superior officers. nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#106
You know the answer to that perfectly well.	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#143
You made the assertion Sabrina; it's up to you to prove it. It's not up to the rest of us	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#156
Made what assertion?	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#160
You make me laugh Sabrina....truly. nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#164
So once again you make an assertion and when you can't back it up, you	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#169
Again, no documentation of your claim. nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#171
What claim? What are you talking about? I stated the facts of this case as they are known	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#174
"Manning reported war crimes to his superiors." Document that.	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#176
No, your debating skills are poor	treestar	Nov 2012	#117
You mean 'that's why two of the usual posters are playing the same old games'. I am having	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#138
You've gone to ad hominem	treestar	Nov 2012	#147
Irony is not dead. Lol! Maybe you can give a direct response to the question they, and you	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#148
How do you know that the allegations aren't being investigated?	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#150
You are asking the wrong person.	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#153
Fair enough	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#155
Thank you, you have a great weekend also!	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#162
I met Ellsberg at Rice University where he met with students, inspired us to go to D.C.	freshwest	Nov 2012	#109
I hope he didn't crave adulation; I feel he was caught up. I remember when all of these great	freshwest	Nov 2012	#58
I think your post is just fine--I wouldn't edit it.	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#67
You sure that was why he didn't use the act?	Ash_F	Nov 2012	#83
He had the option of going to Kucinich, Sanders, Franken.....	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#92
Wait a minute	treestar	Nov 2012	#118
I'm sorry, the adults in this story were too busy protecting pedophiles	Ash_F	Nov 2012	#124
I don't know how pedophiles come into this	treestar	Nov 2012	#127
You are right that he should have talked to a lawyer	Ash_F	Nov 2012	#130
I can't watch a video at work and I can't find much information on this.	randome	Nov 2012	#131
US citizens were doing this	Ash_F	Nov 2012	#136
I always wondered who "the enemy" was in Iraq.	Smarmie Doofus	Nov 2012	#7
Al-Qaeda, which the prosecution presented evidence of at the Article 32.	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#13
So..... Manning was an al-Qaeda agent?	Smarmie Doofus	Nov 2012	#22
Well, an active, recruited agent? No....	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#24
Indeed. In exactly the same way that Ellsberg's treachery aided the NVA and NLF. n/t	Smarmie Doofus	Nov 2012	#31
And Ellsburg would have been convicted--had the FBI refrained from wiretapping him. nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#36
Only if the gov't chose to prosecute him.	Smarmie Doofus	Nov 2012	#82
Um...smarmie. They did prosecute him. like in a courtroom. nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#85
You're getting peevish. I'll let you go. n/t	Smarmie Doofus	Nov 2012	#101
I apologize. I am peevish this evening. Please forgive me. nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#104
Done. You've been at a while. Thanks. N/t	Smarmie Doofus	Nov 2012	#108
He was, as Joesph Stalin liked to say	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#34
Excellent timeline of the entire affair from Firedoglake	hack89	Nov 2012	#40
Indeed--a very good one. nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#46
Poor guy	demhottie	Nov 2012	#42
He's not admitting he was wrong...and he WASN'T wrong.	Ken Burch	Nov 2012	#43
Um--that's what a guilty plea is. Admitting you were wrong. Think there won't be allocution?	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#50
No, it's admitting that you did something...not that you were wrong TO do it.	Ken Burch	Nov 2012	#62
I have clients who think that way, and they have the rap sheets to prove it.	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#65
What Manning did has nothing in common with assault or ANY violent crime	Ken Burch	Nov 2012	#110
Mr. Manning chose the UCMJ, and what he did was a crime under that code.	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#113
The UCMJ cannot be privileged above conscience.	Ken Burch	Nov 2012	#168
Of course you have the right to put conscience before law. What you don't have is right to avoid	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#170
Very funny how the law worked here...	MrMickeysMom	Nov 2012	#185
The sad part is that what he did had no impact	hack89	Nov 2012	#87
In the eyes of the law	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#105
The US military works for the United States of America	Ash_F	Nov 2012	#111
What makes you think that the UCMJ can't find real justice?	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#120
Manning has done 2 years for outing child sex-traffickers	Ash_F	Nov 2012	#122
Those were civilian contractors if I remember right.	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#123
Why do you even visit a political forum?	Ash_F	Nov 2012	#125
Show one post where I said that the people shouldn't discuss what the Govt. does?	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#126
What do you think we are doing here?	Ash_F	Nov 2012	#128
I'll ask again	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#129
Fair enough. But he still wasn't wrong.	Ash_F	Nov 2012	#132
I think he should receive leniency just for his unstable frame of mind.	randome	Nov 2012	#133
Maybe	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#135
I agree with you--he's got lots of mitigating factors to be considered in his sentencing. nt	msanthrope	Nov 2012	#159
I have a difference of opinion on this	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#134
An opinion you won't(or can't) defend?	Ash_F	Nov 2012	#137
Fair enough	glacierbay	Nov 2012	#141
Thanks for your post, glacierbay. It's a clear explanation	Cha	Nov 2012	#187
I doubt a plea bargain will be accepted.	AtomicKitten	Nov 2012	#59
If you really WANT Manning to be punished, that's depressing.	Ken Burch	Nov 2012	#112
It's more depressing to want the law to apply	treestar	Nov 2012	#119
Oh you're so right about that. 'It's more depressing to want the law to apply	sabrina 1	Nov 2012	#142
Can one oppose the war without having to resort to this?	treestar	Nov 2012	#144
You actually doubt that war crimes were committed?	AntiFascist	Nov 2012	#189
The 'law' already favors those in power.	ronnie624	Nov 2012	#149
'Every element of state power'?	randome	Nov 2012	#152
I don't know. Do they? n/t	ronnie624	Nov 2012	#154
State power may refer to:	ronnie624	Nov 2012	#157
I get you.	randome	Nov 2012	#163
The will of the people, should be the basis for all state power. n/t	ronnie624	Nov 2012	#167
So you'd have obeyed the Fugitive Slave Act?	Ken Burch	Nov 2012	#166
You are conflating war in general with what Manning did.	randome	Nov 2012	#121
As I see it, Manning saw the truth AFTER he joined.	Ken Burch	Nov 2012	#165
Manning revealed war crimes	duhneece	Nov 2012	#114
"anyone who reveals war crimes is a hero in my book."	MrMickeysMom	Nov 2012	#181

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.