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."
Duh? Traitors like Manning should be hung to stop more traitors from doing this shit.
He just let the world see the crimes of the US government.
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
and yet you post as an anonymous coward. being able to call someone else 'gay' despite lacking the BALLS to post with at least SOME identity.
Read radical news here
Yes it does. Laws are written around public opinion.
Only the REALLY bad ones. Like "protect the children" kind of bad.
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.
If you are uncovering corruption, rather than giving aid to the enemy, your actions are not criminal.
Well too bad for Manning then he uncovered NOTHING while in the meantime delivering the enemy all kinds of juicy intelligence, locations and names and so forth, in addition to undermining diplomatic relations to a massive extent by embarrassing a class of people across the world who live to not be embarrassed.
Now some of that, you might claim he thought it would be screened and only parts released.
BULLSHIT.
That is a BULLSHIT argument. Any confidential information released WILL eventually all leak out everywhere, these days it is pretty much a certainty. Remember that old canard "information wants to be free"? It's not just a cute saying but a warning about what happens to ANY information you release over the network.
He leaked that information and is fully responsible for what happens as a result. I think WIkileaks or any other group should have zero blame places upon them for release of leaks, because in the end it's all really up to the guy who chose to leak - once they decided that the information was going to go somewhere, just a question of where.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What was unlawful about keeping classified the diplomatic wires?
Noone really seems to want to address that, even though its been brought up in basically every thread on Manning since his arrest. The best answer ive seen is that there shouldnt be any secrets, and diplomacy should occur in the public; but thats what we call a preference grounded in fantasy.
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.
Bradley Manning is a spiteful little shit, who betrayed his country for petty reasons. Had Manning been promoted, praised, and given money, cars, and women, he would never have done what he did. But, because he wasn't promoted as fast as he thought he should be, he lacked money, and couldn't get laid, he decided to "get even" with everyone.
I suppose Ted Bundy is another of your heros?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br