Slashdot Mirror
Bradley Manning's Court Date Finally Set
bs0d3 writes "Bradley Manning has finally been scheduled for a day in court. On December 16, he will have an Article 32 hearing (military pre-trial). Private Manning has been in jail for one and half years. The Article 32 hearing will begin at Fort Meade, Maryland. The primary purpose of the hearing is to evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of the government's case, as well as to provide the defense with an opportunity to obtain pretrial discovery. Further trial dates and locations are still unknown."
The primary purpose of the hearing is to instill fear into anyone else who might have access to sensitive information the public might want to know.
Give his hero ass a medal!
cause being held without due process is full of awesome in this country.
At least the charges against him are real.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
In the U.S a 1.5 year prison sentence is just part of a speedy trial.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Poor fool.... When you sign up you're supposed to understand what you're joining.
End of Line.
And since it's a military trial, he pretty much has to prove not only that he's innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt but further prove who actually did do it. He also has to prove cold fusion using only a pack of gum, a microwave oven, and the complete MacGyver dvd box set.
I'm being facetious, of course, but US military justice isn't famous for its fairness or friendliness to the accused. Just thought people should be aware that he's pretty much screwed whether or not there's any conspiracy to get him convicted.
I wonder if they let him grow a beard? He could be very bearded after one and a half years.
I shudder to think of a world where "one and a half years" qualifies as "speedy". Or have we forgotten the Bill of Rights?
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
I know the government isn't the swiftest thing in the world, but I don't believe it's that slow. And I'm not sure courts martial qualify as "criminal" prosecutions. But I do know that if I were PFC Manning's lawyer, I'd definitely be bringing that up.
I guess the right to a speedy trial doesn't apply to the military.
I know a lot of people here like to live in a fantasy land where the military doesn't need any secrets, but the fact is that some things are secret for good reason. Troop deployment schedules for instance, can allow the enemy to effectively target less experienced units and kill more Americans.
Manning had this all explained to him when he got his clearance, and assuming that he really is guilty, he deserves what is coming to him. Like it or not, loose lips really do sink ships.
Says someone who has never carried a clearance.
He signed his right to due process as we know it in the civillian world when he accepted the responsibility to access classified information. And he knew damn well the risks associated with that responsibility if somebody were to actually think that he violated that trust.
Look, I am willing to entertain arguments that Obama could have done more to get our troops out quicker... but honestly he had a ton of opposition due the warmongering of the previous administration. To claim that Obama is a warmongerer and the reason for all the evils done in Iraq, Afgan, and Libya is rather illogical. The freaking quote in your reply states it was done in 2006... do you know when Obama took office?
Are you a super Right-Wing Republican, a racist, super anti-government or just horribly misinformed?
I may have some sympathy if he knew of specific illegal acts and divulged the information about those acts in order to bring about justice.
But that's not what he did. He just released a huge amount of classified information, some of which could get people killed.
You'd have expected the government to get the fix in quicker than 18 months. Wonder why it took so long.
Yes it does. Laws are written around public opinion. Also, there's whistleblower protection. If you are uncovering corruption, rather than giving aid to the enemy, your actions are not criminal. That may well be the case here. The information released was not of a tactical nature. It didn't disclose troop strengths and numbers, positions, weaknesses, or anything like that. Rather, it exposed a bunch of dirty laundry. Information that shouldn't be classified.
Everything can be waived upon request. However, this is the period where the government conducts its investigation. A big, complex case would mean a long investigation.
Here the soldier is at an advantage over a civilian, because he actually gets to be involved in the hearing and present and cross examine witnesses. A civilian prosecutor can (and often does) hold a grand jury without the interests of the defense being presented, thus the saying about indicting a ham sandwich.
This is one reason why courts martial have a high conviction rate. Most cases that wouldn't result in a conviction don't get referred for trial after an Article 32 hearing. This is how our civilian grand jury system is supposed to work.
Manning is just a liar.
When he got is clearance he made an oath knowing what the penalty would be were he to break it, and he broke it.
He released more than 100K classified documents, did he check each one of those documents to see if there was evidence for a specific crime of the US?
I don't think so. He grabbed absolutely everything he could and sent it out.
Contrary to ignorant claims, Manning is no martyr, he's just a lying creep, who should hope that they shoot him rather than lock him away in the USDB forever.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Military laws are different than civilian laws. When you sign up for the military, you agree to be subjected to the Uniform Code of Military Justice when you are on duty or deployed. It is related to US civilian laws, but not the same. So if you want to sign up to be a solider, you need to be aware you are held to a different legal standard. A simple example would be that insubordination is against the law in the military.
Then there's the matter of revealing classified data. Military or not when you are given a security clearance, you agree to not reveal classified information. I don't mean they say "You agree to this," I mean you actually sign an agreement, an NDA. It is very much a full disclosure kind of situation in that you understand and agree not to reveal the things you'll be shown.
So you can certainly say he did the morally right thing leaking the information, if you believe that (though I would then ask you to show what information leaked you believe was so important for the public to know) but you can't argue it was legal or that he didn't know it was illegal. Since it was done in military service, that also makes it a military trial.
About the US of A. Doesn't matter how heavy handed the government acts, there's always a queue forming to defend the actions.
So that video of a bunch of soldiers killing people for no reason was put in the hands of some random 23 year old. He released it, and now they want to charge the 23 year old with "aiding the enemy" which is a capital crime, along with 22 other charges. And they put him in solitary confinement while awaiting trial.
Well at least they are giving him a trial instead of just executing him.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Solitary confinement and constant monitoring and harrassment will drive anyone insane eventually. So now that he's been thoroughly broken, the "trial" can begin.
Well, if I were innocent. You don't get a group where the two sides have tried to produce the most ignorant jury possible. They're not likely to be swayed by the pretty charts and rhetoric of the prosecution if they have no real basis.
You get career military people who are generally well-educated and know the military laws themselves. The average officer on the jury is field-grade, and he'll have a military-oriented master's degree at minimum. Enlisted normally don't rise to the ranks that get put on juries without having at least a batchelor's.
Do you think it means unconditional loyalty even when the state begins to commit atrocities?
Then why did he not JUST leak the "atrocities"?
What were the "atrocities" anyway? In the end it seemed like a big bowl of nothing, with only downside for the poor bastards that provided some intelligence to the U.S. who had names exposed.
There should not be unconditional loyalty. But neither should loyalty be abandoned for nothing whatsoever. Somewhere in the middle is the right point to accept death and dishonor for what you are about to reveal. He came nowhere near that point.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The defense generally wants as long as they can before trial for all kinds of reasons. As such you almost never see a speedy trial motion. The only time you'd be likely to see one is if an attorney was convinced his client was innocent and the state was dragging their feat. However that is fairly rare.
Generally in a case where the defense would file a speedy trial motion the prosecution will drop the case rather than go to court and lose. I'm not saying it is always that way, but 99.999% of the time.
In Manning's case his guilt seems to be pretty clear cut. Thus his lawyer is not going to be at all interested in pushing the trial quickly. He'll want as much time to pass as possible for a lot of reasons.
if you have the balls. some anonymous coward accusing someone who put the government SHIT into open with treason, smells like horse shit.
Read radical news here
He's had days in court. Administrative matters relating to his basic rights rather than addressing of the larger issues of whether he should or shouldn't be there, but court nonetheless. He hasn't been denied counsel and a judge been in charge of his incarceration and care since shortly after his arrest. The spooks didn't disappear him. He's getting due process (unless maybe someone in the process screws up and he's getting technicalities his lawyer can exploit, but those are details, not a basic denial of any rights beyond his own signing away of anything but military justice).
He is still in the Army and is a prisoner like any other arrested soldier. However, his is a much more severe case than most, and due to the circumstances is held in a status designed to prevent injury by himself or other prisoners.
let's not forget these leaks were a catalyst for the Tunisian uprising, which lead to the revolts in Egypt and Libya
Since both countries are about to be taken over by hard-core Islamofascist groups (Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt) are you advocating then for a worse punishment?
It's really a shame as I loved Egypt and the people there will great. They were poor but had a lot of freedom really, all of that gone soon...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Enough of that bullshit. Till to date no one has been proven killed because of the cable release. The only thing they have done is cast light on war crimes and other shit the US and their allies pull off. If anything the world is a little bit better knowing that all those conspiracy theories may not be as far fetched as the government would like you to think.
There is only one saving grace in this, in that Assange had the good sense to try to cleanse the documents before releasing them.
That's why it sucks to carry a clearance.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
How would this have played out if he had directly leaked the cables to the New York Times instead?
I was watching an episode of Locked Up Abroad and laughing at some 3rd world country that took about a year to put the antagonist to trial while he sat in jail. So, in what version of Gestapo America is 1 1/2 years OK?
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Let's even go back to Private Slovik in WWII, the man famous for being the only one executed for desertion. He said he would desert, was told his action would constitute desertion, and after he did it he was given several chances to go back to his unit and all would be forgotten. He wrote a note incriminating himself, and was offered a couple of times to have it torn up. To make sure Slovik understood the consequences, they had him write on the back of his note.
Slovik committed suicide by judicial system, on the hopes he would just get a jail sentence that would be commuted after the war. A lot of people in the Army system tried, but failed, to protect him from himself.
Well too bad for Manning then he uncovered NOTHING while in the meantime delivering the enemy all kinds of juicy intelligence
You've got your blinkers on there.
Let me guess, your a jingoist?
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
If found guilty, putting him up against the wall and doing what you do to traitors up against the wall is fully appropriate for the damage he has done.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
*For extremely slow values of speedy.
Well too bad for Manning then he uncovered NOTHING
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/world/26wikidrugs.html?pagewanted=all
Palm trees and 8
Some people would say that much of the information he released shouldn't have been classified in the first place. So, who is really the one misusing it?
Having sat in jail a long time might be useful as a bargaining chip, depending on why he said in jail for that long. But if the prosecutors are willing to take a plea bargain, I see two things he might want to consider doing: (a) Decide that what he did was right and fight to the death, or (b) decide that he's willing to admit guilt (even if he still feels he's not guilty) and plea-bargain for time-served and a dishonorable discharge. Of course, neither may work. He's up for treason, which is a serious accusation. But if the government wants to make an example of this behavior without keeping him in prison forever, they can get their legal precedent, which is often what they want. "Making law" is a feather in their caps.
Not even fucking close.
If he could have attached each one of those documents to a specific crime, he might have had some moral ground to stand on. But instead he released as many classified documents as he could get his hands on.
In spite of his self-righteous grandstanding, I think he was really just pissed that he was demoted and going to get kicked out for assaulting an officer and thought, and probably still thinks, that he'll get away with it in the long run.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Here's something that will spin your brain: This is Bush's drawdown. Yep, agreed to in 2008 with the government of Iraq.
The only possible way this had anything to do with the drawdown would be if Obama had been planning to keep the troops there despite the Bush agreement, but decided not to after this got out.
One could even argue that the "secrets" that were exposed led to the "Arab Spring" where brutal dictatorial governments were overthrown by the masses seeking freedom and democracy.
On second thought, judging by the United States' reaction to the "Occupy Wall St" protests, perhaps he was aiding the enemy.
Thank you for pointing out what should be fucking obvious. Everyone just looks the other way while stuff is being improperly classified, as if that doesn't matter at all. Perhaps if they had not wrongly classified that intel, Manning wouldn't have had the urge to allegedly leak it.
:(){
> He leaked that information and is fully responsible for what happens as a result.
I agree. This is the basis on which he should be judged. Did the release of this information on balance have a good or bad effect. He couldn't possibly have known the implications of all releasing all that he released, some informers could have conceivable ended up being executed (although, I'm pretty sure the powerful interests embarrassed by the leak would have highlighted any concrete examples had there been any). On the other hand, a vast amount of this information was not classified for any reason other than for political expediency. One cannot have a functioning democracy when people have no idea what their government is up to so there is a definite good that comes from bringing more information to light than the government is comfortable with. Its also true that diplomats cannot properly function without discretion. Tricky one this.. he's guilty, he'll go to jail, but he was right about something: a vast amount of this stuff was classified for the benefit of other guilty parties rather than for the good of the American people. He gets to pay the price of our increased liberty - he can't be let off completely but some compassion is called for
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
If its on a classified machine, its classified; by definition.
Not only that its illegal to place classified documents or classified media on an unclassified machine.
Data going into a classified world is a one way trip without going through a lot of paperwork. And everybody with a clearance knows this, they tell you this when you sign your ass away to get the clearance in the first place.
demands blood, for socialist... i mean capitalist legality! ... i mean JAG
truly the fascist.. i mean terrorist ally manning must feel the wrath of SMERSH
information. there are certain types of classified information that are a crime in certain situations, and none of them apply to manning.
you can go read the actual laws, starting with the Espionage Act, which doesnt even use the word 'classified' until you get to the SIGINT part (and he isnt charged with the SIGINT part)
then you can read the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which is an embarassement, but also doesnt use the word 'classified'.
if you want to know WHY there is no law, its because most congressmen and presidents leak classified information all the time, every news story you have ever read or book containing words like 'senior officials tell us' and so forth and so on is someone leaking classified information for a political purpose.
so your entire argument is basically moot.
read the actual text of the laws he is accused of violating. "having classified info on a non classified system" whats the penalty for that? it sure as hell aint the death penalty or a life sentence.
unity10, you must be gay. What difference does it make if someone posts bullshit anonymously or under the guise of a dipshit name like "unity100". Shut your fucking mouth. You want my balls? Check your wife's mouth for me. How did my dick taste after you came back from Atlanta and kissed your wife for the first time in weeks?
Am I the only person in the world who thinks Bradley Manning is a fictitious character? I kinda think he doesn't exist and I'm curious as to the source of these news.
unity10, you must be gay.
You want my balls?.
Check your wife's mouth for me.
How did my dick taste after you came back from ATLANTA and kissed your wife for the first time in weeks?
ATLANTA HAHAHAHAHAAH ATLANTA !!! HAHAHAHAAHAA
.... did someone screw you in atlanta, KID ? HAHAHAHAAHHA
fucking atlanta. not austin or seattle. atlanta
it seems we need coppa act back. too many 12 year olders flying about on the internet.
Read radical news here
What makes this case so interesting is that he clearly broke the military rules and also clearly helped humanity through his actions and he never gained anything by doing it. He wasn't paid for doing it and he knew people would hate him and that he would be punished hard but he followed his ideals rather than doing what gains him the most personally. He believed in the right of the public to know what their country is actually doing and where their tax money goes.
I see that some of you are angry with him and want him punished but when asked what he actually did wrong you can't argue further than him "breaking the rules" and "acting irresponsible". That he caused or will cause deaths is pure speculation. Maybe you are angry with him because deep inside you know you would never have the balls to pull this off by yourself? Because you know that you are that kind of person that curls into a ball when the authority beats you with a stick and tells you what to do and think. Because being told what to do and think follows naturally when you argue that the government has the right to censor and keep information secret from the public it serves.
What makes this case so interesting is the reactions from people. It tells you a lot of what kind of person you are deep inside.
The simple fact of the matter is: Bradley Manning is more of a patriot than you or I or probably anyone else on Slashdot could ever hope to be.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Why does every one keep wanting to see proof that mannings release of cables led to soldiers dying. He's not on trial for killing soldiers, he's on trail for spilling government secrets, regardless of there perceived importance.
The Arab Spring revolutions are over. Does Libya or Egypt now have a free and democratic government?
Anyone notice that there seem to be a lot of sock puppets around Slashdot lately?
like i said you MUST be a GAY COMMIE just like your butt buddy bradley manning who is going to be RAPED IN THE ASS for the rest of his life. if he wasnt a homo before he is gonna be
looks like the mods must think youre a FUCKING TRoLL as well
anyways enjoy the pliers being used on your balls bradley.
this site is shit and butt boy traitor 'bradley manning' is NOT news for nerds. news for gay nigger loving commies... PERHAPS
Really? he revealed 250K documents of war-crimes?
Or was he just pissed because he was getting kicked out for assaulting an officer and is playing the sympathy card in the hopes they he can give the govt. a bloody nose and eventually get away with it?
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
So... somewhere it's written down that when you do this you don't go to trial but you spend more than a year in a very inhumane pre-trial lockup? Ah, ok, I see.
When I first heard about Manning being arrested I thought; Damn! How dare they arrest a man who exposed the dirty secrets of a nation.
But as I thought about it, he didn't seem to focus on any particular issue. The Cables were all manner of things, some not even remotely interesting. And this is why I'm not all for believing this man acted in the best interests exposing the dirty laundry. If he had found an actual document(s) that told of some horrible atrocity and exposed the lies behind that, I would have the utmost respect for the man. But I just see a guy who grabbed a fistful of Cables and sent them to WikiLeaks.
Where a President (no names mentioned bush) can start a war on lies but convicts its own for exposing the truth; banks steal your life savings yet none of the bankers have been declared an enemy of the state. Can there or is there justice for manning? I find it hard to believe there will be. It seems everything is terrorism now its just the angle the gov needs to do what they want. If George can go free manning should also go free; manning did not kill anyone, unfortunately the same cannot be said of George.
Every inch of his pinis is invested ... every employee of the Department of Defence, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security and the Central Intelligence Agency are on the line to die if little pittiful gay Bradley Manning walks.
Even the U.S. Supreme Court will favor Obama because many of them owe their lives and careers to Obama's favor of them.
Want to bet the Obama Court of Justice has already bought a body bag of Manning???? Oh Yea!
Bastards,
Ignoratio elenchi.
Meanwhile, in 1693, Bradley Manning would have been burnt on the stake (or crushed by heavy stones) for witchcraft, which is the only way that would explain how he managed to smuggle over 400.000 papers when there when there wasn't that much paper in the world.
Not to mention getting into people's heads and creating visual illusions of them flying like witches and shooting magical bullets, and later leaking those illusions to the press.
And in 3001 he will be sentenced to death by snoo-snoo.
It might sound trollish, but given US military track record - very propable. My take is that he agreed to sign under "testimony" that military has prepared for him, maybe in exchange for lesser sentence. This so called "testimony" accuses him for cooperating with foreign "terrorist organization" called wikileaks and is specifically designed to open way to extradite and prosecute every wikileaks member they can find.
This is such an amazing site. Hotels Near Disneyland thanks for sharing this article Free Printable Rental Lease Agreement thanks and regards
This is such an amazing site. Food For All thanks for sharing this website Hotels Near Disneyland nice and great article Printable Real Estate Forms its absolutely great Free Printable Rental Lease Agreement thanks printable legal forms and regards to all by IMELDA::
Over?
Are you completely ignorant to what is happening right now in Tahrir square in Cairo?
Eat the rich.
n/t
It is a waste to keep such an young educated man in a cell.
Hey, look! It is the basic ad hominem attack used by all far left people, who have no real argument other than "I want it it, WHAAAA!", in an attempt to force people who disagree with them to give the far leftists their way. Tell us, why didn't you just take the most traveled path and call him a Nazi?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Most laws are SUPPOSED to be written by representatives acting with research on a topic the public cannot take the time to do or with information the public cannot know.
How can I know they are representing me, if I can not know the information on which they are basing their decisions?
The effect is irrelevant. You are arguing "two wrongs make a right". He committed crimes and should be punished for those crimes.
Under your theory, I should be allowed to go around killing drug dealers without fear of prosecution because the net effect would be positive.
Oh, and you are also using a false dichotomy because, even without the release of the documents in question, the people did have an idea what their government was up to. These documents didn't mean the difference between the people knowing and having "no idea".
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
No, he was not a patriot. You don't seem to know what that word means. Perhaps you should look it up. Here, let me help you with that
A person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors
Now, let us look at the definition of another word, traitor:
1. a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.
2. a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.
According to the dictionary, Manning is a traitor.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
nt
Where have you been?
You're both wrong. Bradley Manning is, like all humans, a complex mixture of a half a dozeon or more motivations, some altruistic, some self-serving, some fearful. His motives included retribution because he was getting kicked out under an unjust law (don't ask, don't tell) and patriotism because he felt that something should be done about a wartime atrocity and apparently out of some sense of admiration for anarchy.
He's a fool who committed a possibly traitorous act partly for revenge and partly for patriotism. I'm glad he's getting his day in court, and and I wish it had been a lot sooner. I hope all of his motivations are laid bare in court for a judge to decide what's to be done.
seg fault
Get an email with a classified sentence in it, forward it with your long unclassified comments, forget to label your specific comments as unclassified, ta-da, over-classification.
Individual paragraphs are supposed to be labeled by their classification, and individual pages are supposed to be labeled with the highest-classified paragraph, and documents labeled with the highest-classified page. But this isn't always done because people are lazy, or maybe their training wasn't good enough. Now when there's a FOIA request the person working it can't simply look at the classification indicators and allow the paragraph to be released, it has to be declassified. That can take much time and effort, and it's safer just to consider it classified.
Basically, well-meaning people err on the side of caution.
Whistleblower protection? really?
We are talking about a guy who used his position of privilage and trust to upload sensitive internal discussions from the Department of State to a foreign website, thus weakening the nation he vowed to serve and protect weaker and more vulnerable.
Was there anything criminal in the documents that he uploaded? No. Unethical? perhaps. DID HE EVEN READ IT before he uploaded it? Very doubtful, considering the volume of material.
As for the length of time it has taken for him to get a trail. . .
When you take the oath, you give up certain rights and liberties. One of those is the right to a trail by jury (via the Article 15, aka non-judicial punishment, process). For a crime of Manning's magnitude, however, requires a full Court Marshal. This follows most of the requirements of Jury selection in a civilian court with the additional requirement that the Jury consist of 1/2 officers and 1/2 enlisted (For cases involving enlisted. Cases involving officers have an all officer jury, i believe)
How long do you think it take to find a jury pool of individuals in the US Military (preferrably Army) who have Top Secret Clearances (or did at one time), and have NOT heard and formed an opinion of the Bradley Manning Case?
To disobey what he thinks is an unlawful order, it had better be blatantly unlawful on its face. One such order could be "Burn these thousands of classified documents onto a CD and give them to a foreign leak-publishing site." That is blatantly unlawful, and a soldier could probably get away with refusing to do it.
I knew a female military prison guard who was ordered to leave the female prisoners under her watch and report somewhere, and the male guard ordering her was to take over watch of the prisoners. Having female prisoners guarded solely by a male guard was explicitly against the written rules, so she refused to leave her post until relieved by a female guard. Even in such a clear-cut case she was in a heap of trouble until it went to the top and she was cleared.
So "I don't believe in the general mission here" is not going to cover a soldier's ass for disobeying orders.
To WikiLeaks. That is why he's in so much legal trouble.
He's innocent before proven guilty.
But instead he's been treated worse than a criminal from day one.
He showed the military holes in their systems and procedures:
Don't just throw files out there even if they are on SIPR. Use normal directory and share security to keep things in your section unless you intend to share them.
Lock out CD burning and USB drive mounting.
If a soldier looks unstable, consider pulling his access. If he's going to be kicked out, it should be SOP to pull his access before you even tell him.
The way you assert it to be, it may very well be in practice, and it may very well have been upheld by the courts. But the courts have upheld a lot of laws for a long time before they were overturned, and no law, military or civil, is special in this regard.
But more than that, the situation with Bradley Manning is also clearly wrong. The requirement to obey lawful orders goes hand-in-hand with the responsibility to only give lawful orders, and that carries all the way up to the top: the commander-in-chief (i.e. the president).
Where does his authority come from? The constitution! He also swears to uphold it, and he literally has no authority to command anyone to disregard it, in whole or in part.
Or else, if the US really is about fetishizing military discipline to such a crazy extent, then fuck it. But I don't think so.
-- What do you need?
-- Gnus. Lots of Gnus.
Hey, look! It is the basic ad hominem attack used by all far left people, who have no real argument other than "I want it it, WHAAAA!", in an attempt to force people who disagree with them to give the far leftists their way. Tell us, why didn't you just take the most traveled path and call him a Nazi?
--
I have a mod stalker who is modding down my past comments and is too much of a cowardly pussy to admit it or face me.
Maybe stop being such a dickhead and you won't be modded down by your 'mod stalker' lol
The proposed bills - SOPA and PROTECT IP criminalize divulging national security secrets... and recommends minimum sentencing starting at 10 and as high and 20 years! Also fines in the millions!
Surely it is just funny timing that Manning gets his day in court just as legislation with sentencing minimums for revealing national security secrets is about rammed through our representatives!