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 best that people seem to be able to scrape together for "crimes that Manning revealed" is the whole "collateral murder" thing which was the biggest example of bias in reporting Ive seen in my life. Once you remove Assange's whole "make a hero out friendly-fire casualties and bash the US whilst we're at it" commentary, and watch the raw footage, you get a much different picture. I suppose if youve seen the commentaried version first, it will color subsequent viewings, but having seen both, I think that it doesnt take wacky, far-fetched conspiracy theories to explain what seems to be pretty simple-- people obeying the chain of command but making a mistaken ID.
Or was there a better example of "crimes" that you can come up with out of the leaks?
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
Or option C, if someone intends to present a statement as facts, they should either source it or be specific enough that someone can tell if theyre just full of crap, as is far too common on slashdot?
Why is it, in most slashdot threads, when someone is called on uncited, vague, un-backed up claims, their response is inevitably NOT to provide a source or citation, but to lash out as if its everyone elses fault that they cant provide some token of credibility? Good gracious if the poster had a specific instance in mind, he could have given SOMETHING that could have been googled or looked up rather than pouting and acting like a 3 year old about it.
As for why I dont accept such claims without a source, years of hearing Bush attacked for "2 unauthorized wars", only to find out upon researching it that every one of the Bushs' wars were authorized by congress (In the case of Bush jr, by landslide votes), as well as other similar lies, have made me incredibly cynical of any "fact" posted on slashdot without citation. Until someone gives me some reason to trust them as credible, I assume everything they say is at LEAST out of context or heavily spun, if not a complete fabrication.