Latest Breaking News

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)

86. Manning opted for no jury. Further, most of the trial delay has been due to the defense, which is a

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:58 AM

Jan 2013

smart strategy by them, since Manning is currently in med sec. Once he is convicted, he goes to max sec. So, it's to the defense's advantage to delay trial as much as possible.

Edited to add--the judge ruled that the prosecution must prove an intent standard on a single charge that frankly, isn't a high bar.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

176 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

WikiLeaks: Bradley Manning's motives are no defence, judge rules [View all] Recursion Jan 2013 OP

How is this not like the Pentagon Papers? Ash_F Jan 2013 #1

The Pentagon Papers were a single high-level study leaked by a civilian to the NYT Recursion Jan 2013 #4

Look at the summary of the material he is being charged on Ash_F Jan 2013 #5

To Explain: naaman fletcher Jan 2013 #6

Everyone is entitled to justice. Ash_F Jan 2013 #9

look, I'm 100% on manning's side, naaman fletcher Jan 2013 #11

Yes but, there are mitigating circumstances and there is the spirit of the law. Ash_F Jan 2013 #13

No dice. He would have had to have known what he was leaking Recursion Jan 2013 #14

See post 15. I beg to differ. /nt Ash_F Jan 2013 #16

Yes--and he can bring up the mitigating circumstances at sentencing. nt msanthrope Jan 2013 #28

He should not have been held for this long PERIOD Ash_F Jan 2013 #58

Manning opted for no jury. Further, most of the trial delay has been due to the defense, which is a msanthrope Jan 2013 #86

And what should happen if the US military begins operating against the civilian US government jberryhill Mar 2013 #155

State Department is very intertwined with military in its functionality. Ash_F Mar 2013 #157

Do you want to address the question or not? jberryhill Mar 2013 #161

Good luck with that. That person loves their logical fallacies, as well as moving the goalposts and stevenleser Mar 2013 #163

I suppose jberryhill Mar 2013 #164

I did Ash_F Mar 2013 #165

It's not a "hypothetical coup" jberryhill Mar 2013 #167

He exposes rape and murder and you accuse him of starting a coup Ash_F Mar 2013 #168

I don't think you understand what a State Department cable is Recursion Jan 2013 #7

I know exactly what a State Department Cable is defined as Ash_F Jan 2013 #8

If you read that you read more of it than Manning did (nt) Recursion Jan 2013 #10

Citation for this claim? Ash_F Jan 2013 #15

Didnt Manning have the legal option though to report that cstanleytech Jan 2013 #23

The legal duty in fact. nt msanthrope Jan 2013 #29

Yes, which is why it was right to keep him in solitary for years. Ash_F Jan 2013 #59

Actually I suspect the whole solitary thing has more to do with him cstanleytech Jan 2013 #65

It is ridiculous that pedophilia and rape apologia has a place on DU. Ash_F Jan 2013 #66

To bad though the case isnt about him just leaking that though because cstanleytech Jan 2013 #68

That alone makes him a hero and worthy of a full pardon. Ash_F Jan 2013 #74

If this was only an issue of him being charged with leaking cstanleytech Jan 2013 #81

That is like claiming if I go outside with an uzi and indiscriminantly mow down 5000 people that I stevenleser Mar 2013 #140

Read some of the info in this thread. You don't know what you are talking about. /nt Ash_F Mar 2013 #144

I know a lot more than you. I've read the details and am former military. nt stevenleser Mar 2013 #145

And yet you chose to defend the cover-up of child sex trafficking Ash_F Mar 2013 #146

No, that is your straw man. nt stevenleser Mar 2013 #147

Your argument is the straw man. Ash_F Mar 2013 #148

You do not know what a straw man is. You should learn. Using logical fallacies like you do stevenleser Mar 2013 #149

Why don't you stick to the facts of the case? Ash_F Mar 2013 #150

Every time someone has responded to you with facts, you throw a logical fallacy at them stevenleser Mar 2013 #151

I challenge you to dispute any of the facts I've put forth. /nt Ash_F Mar 2013 #152

Like what? What 'facts' have you put forth? nt stevenleser Mar 2013 #153

This thread is here for you to read. Ash_F Mar 2013 #156

Let me get this straight... stevenleser Mar 2013 #158

You sound like you watch too many James Bond / Tom Clancy movies Ash_F Mar 2013 #159

Which means nothing coming from you because you know nothing about it stevenleser Mar 2013 #162

You have still not provided evidence of the Rush/Hannity talking points you espoused previously... Ash_F Mar 2013 #166

You just issued yet another logical fallacy by trying to suggest I espoused Rush /Hannity talking stevenleser Mar 2013 #170

"distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented..." Ash_F Mar 2013 #173

No. Its not. nt stevenleser Mar 2013 #174

so your singular contribution to the problem of child abuse BainsBane Jan 2013 #111

If you've followed this at all, you'd know that Manning has serious emotional problems. randome Jan 2013 #70

That has nothing to do with how he was treated Ash_F Jan 2013 #75

Putting him in solitary DOES have to do with being a suicide risk. randome Jan 2013 #82

He was in solitary for 9 months, not years. hack89 Jan 2013 #91

This is correct. Ash_F Jan 2013 #101

The issue is the secrecy itself. Ken Burch Mar 2013 #137

I see it as different BainsBane Jan 2013 #99

You think child sex-trafficking by US contractors should be protected? Ash_F Jan 2013 #100

If it has been a series of cables on that topic specifically BainsBane Jan 2013 #104

There is no proof that the cables resulted in the loss of life Ash_F Jan 2013 #105

that is not what the NYTimes reported BainsBane Jan 2013 #108

I guess we'll see what the prosecution presents at trial. /nt Ash_F Jan 2013 #114

I could believe the NY Times report BainsBane Jan 2013 #110

Rape apology deserves insult and more Ash_F Jan 2013 #113

by the way BainsBane Jan 2013 #116

The posts are what they are. Ash_F Jan 2013 #123

it isn't a position BainsBane Jan 2013 #125

uh-huh Ash_F Jan 2013 #130

Reporting it to the inspector general of the army would have gotten the ball rolling on that. I used stevenleser Mar 2013 #142

i got pulled into the jury on this post :) TeamPooka Jan 2013 #109

I hope you were #3 Ash_F Jan 2013 #115

Indeed. Approving the use of a sexist term on the thread where you accuse others of rape apologia msanthrope Jan 2013 #119

I would have thought that would be obvious BainsBane Jan 2013 #120

Good to see you equate using the word "bitches" with covering up child rape. Ash_F Jan 2013 #124

Those raped little girls grow up BainsBane Jan 2013 #126

They were boys in this incident Ash_F Jan 2013 #131

Oh, now I understand BainsBane Mar 2013 #132

Wow, you waited a loooooooong time to reply. Ash_F Mar 2013 #135

And you've used it again. Which undercuts your argument even more. nt msanthrope Jan 2013 #128

The difference is the leaker is known. jeff47 Mar 2013 #133

I meant more in the sense that Manning is being made out as the bad guy. Ash_F Mar 2013 #136

Oh and you are thinking of watergate Ash_F Mar 2013 #138

Ah yes, my mistake. (nt) jeff47 Mar 2013 #139

does manning boost al queda membership by using drones? nt msongs Jan 2013 #2

Military justice is to justice, Hissyspit Jan 2013 #3

Perhaps, but you are adequately warned in basic training about how strict things are. stevenleser Mar 2013 #141

No justification for telling the truth! nt Deep13 Jan 2013 #12

Military and "justice" don't go together. go west young man Jan 2013 #17

Manning had NO motive, other than seeking attention. railsback Jan 2013 #18

Is he not charged with leaking the "Collateral Murder" video? snot Jan 2013 #19

That's the gunship video? Recursion Jan 2013 #21

No, it's video from a helicopter clearly documenting snot Jan 2013 #121

Helicopter = gunship. That's one of the charges Recursion Jan 2013 #122

This message was self-deleted by its author snot Jan 2013 #129

The video from which this frame is taken, yes? jberryhill Mar 2013 #169

I thought the basis of his argument was that he was following the military's code of honor... freshwest Jan 2013 #20

If that were true, then he'd have my full support. railsback Jan 2013 #56

His defenders focus on an aerial video, not that other material. freshwest Jan 2013 #57

You paint with a very broad brush... AntiFascist Jan 2013 #106

Here's how it went for Col. Lakin... jberryhill Jan 2013 #102

Yes, that group is scary. I'll get back with you. freshwest Jan 2013 #107

This man has been punished enough. Go after the management who didn't notice what was downloaded. Sunlei Jan 2013 #22

He exposed war-crimes, as he is legally oblieged to do. redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #24

Agreed newfie11 Jan 2013 #25

And the gigabytes of State Department cables, that he didn't even read before uploading? Recursion Jan 2013 #39

I'm sort of at a loss how he managed to do all of this stuff on his shift, I guess. freshwest Jan 2013 #79

and this is worse than what we have done to innocence by the thousands? newfie11 Jan 2013 #83

As someone pointed out, some of this information ended up on Big Laden's laptop. randome Jan 2013 #84

What war crimes? randome Jan 2013 #26

Murder of civilians. redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #27

YOu mean the video where Assange describes a guy carrying an RPG, after curfew, that was fired on? msanthrope Jan 2013 #30

Yeah. That one. randome Jan 2013 #31

I know it's unfair to quote Assange when talking about Assange--but it's rather relevatory when msanthrope Jan 2013 #32

So you defend a militarized police state. CE5 Jan 2013 #33

Uh...huh? randome Jan 2013 #34

You are wrong. By the standards of Nuremberg soldiers are required to disobey illegal orders. redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #36

The international community has, regrettably, supported the Iraq war. randome Jan 2013 #37

And even if the video did show a crime, there's the cables that he leaked without reading Recursion Jan 2013 #41

Are you saying enforcing a curfew is an illegal order? Recursion Jan 2013 #40

If you are an illegal invader, then yes, enforcing a curfew is illegal. redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #43

Are you under the impression that a war not sanctioned by the Security Council is "illegal"? Recursion Jan 2013 #45

To my knowledge, the UN charta forbids attacking other countries. redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #46

Unfortunately, it was the international community -i.e. the U.N.- that invaded Iraq. randome Jan 2013 #48

Congress authorized the war on terror, and reauthorized it 3 times. Therefore it is not illegal. graham4anything Jan 2013 #76

What does congress have to do with international law? redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #77

Since the US had no right to impose a curfew in Iraq or fire on people, RPG or not, yes ... redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #35

No. "War crime" means something, and that's not it. Recursion Jan 2013 #38

Easy: redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #42

That's also not true. Neither of those is true. Recursion Jan 2013 #44

.... redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #47

Are we reading the same link? cstanleytech Jan 2013 #52

Here: redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #53

Thanks but the problem of that first part I quotes still exists in that cstanleytech Jan 2013 #55

The US government has no right to restrict RPGs? ok. msanthrope Jan 2013 #49

The US governments has the right to restrict RPGs. redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #50

Um--this was an Iraqi-imposed curfew, enforced by Iraqis and the US military, jointly: msanthrope Jan 2013 #51

Yeah. redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #54

The salient point in all of this... jberryhill Mar 2013 #154

Child sex slave trafficking by US contractors, and the attempted cover up by US diplomats Ash_F Jan 2013 #60

Throw the book at them! No question! But is that a war crime? randome Jan 2013 #61

It happened in Afghanistan(so yes war crime), and no contractors or diplomats have been charged. Ash_F Jan 2013 #62

Not the Military 4Q2u2 Jan 2013 #63

Military works in conjunction with the State Department to be the law of the land Ash_F Jan 2013 #64

Congressmen are Better 4Q2u2 Jan 2013 #67

The information has been out for years and congress has done nothing Ash_F Jan 2013 #73

Maybe they did look into it and Found Nothing 4Q2u2 Jan 2013 #80

I don't need blind faith in politicians, I can read Ash_F Jan 2013 #92

You are right 4Q2u2 Jan 2013 #93

The Guardian? That is a direct link to the cable with the Diplos own words and self incrimination Ash_F Jan 2013 #94

Post removed Post removed Jan 2013 #95

Yes they are the Diplomat is referring US members of Dyncorp Ash_F Jan 2013 #96

This message was self-deleted by its author newfie11 Jan 2013 #85

and the information that was not related to war crimes that he 'exposed' Bodhi BloodWave Jan 2013 #87

In my view... redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #88

a nice 'essay' but it did not answer the question of the info he released that had nothing to Bodhi BloodWave Jan 2013 #89

The essential charge against him is "aiding the enemy". redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #90

i'm not arguing for or against that as its a seperate matter Bodhi BloodWave Jan 2013 #97

I think that if damages resulted to a person from the release of this info... redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #98

That's what the "Oath Keepers" are all about jberryhill Jan 2013 #103

But the president is a US citizen. redgreenandblue Jan 2013 #112

We are talking about a "motive" defense in this thread jberryhill Jan 2013 #117

I wonder how many of our intelligence assets died I love weed Jan 2013 #69

That was my first concern about the 'data dump' as it seemed sloppy. freshwest Jan 2013 #78

Using it as part of the charges reveals additional classified information jeff47 Mar 2013 #134

The judge is applying the law correctly. What matters in determining guilt or innocence is 24601 Jan 2013 #71

Salute for the distinction between intent and motive Recursion Jan 2013 #72

+1 Supply Side Jesus Jan 2013 #118

not a lawyer, but here motive and intent are pretty much the same wordpix Mar 2013 #176

Isn't it Brenda Manning? SWTORFanatic Jan 2013 #127

Because making fun of gay men by giving them female names is funny. Enjoy your stay. stevenleser Mar 2013 #143

I recommend that everyone interested in the Bradley Manning JDPriestly Mar 2013 #160

Having studied the Third Reich my whole life, I would say that they dont have anything in common stevenleser Mar 2013 #171

You should watch the film. JDPriestly Mar 2013 #172

I thought a defendant's motive was a legitimate factor in judgments wordpix Mar 2013 #175