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."
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.
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.
Until a jury says he is guilty, he's fucking presumed innocent.
cause being held without due process for 18 months under conditions that are considered torture by international observers is full of awesome in this country.
You're right, you just didn't quite make the point strongly enough.
One interesting question is whether the treatment of Bradley Manning is better or worse than the treatment of Yaser Hamdi, a US citizen imprisoned for 3 years and then (once the US Supreme Court said that was not OK) deported to Saudi Arabia, all without having been charged with a crime, much less convicted of one.
I am officially gone from
In the civilian world, yes. In the military world, he could stand before a general, or a tribunal, or a jury of his peers, which is to say, a bunch of active duty military guys who have been told over and over for the last year that this guy is evil.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Bradley Manning is a true American patriot and hero for exposing the malignant corruption infesting and perverting the great American ideal.
Against all enemies, foreign and domestic
How would you interpret the bolded part? Do you think it means unconditional loyalty even when the state begins to commit atrocities?
FRA: STFU GTFO
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.
I keep hearing people saying that. Can you at the least link me to a news story about some squad of soliders that has gotten killed DIRECTLY because of the leaks?
Obviously you do not understand the Oath. It is each soldiers right, duty and obligation to determine that for himself.
That's why "just following orders" is not a valid defense.
What makes 1863 such a good time for comparison? Social norms evolve over time. In 1863, women didn't have the right to vote, and one hundred years later blacks still didn't have equal civil rights. What might have gotten a death penalty or even a simple shot in the back yard without trial response in those days is no longer acceptable today. Should Manning be crucified today, because it was good enough for Jesus back in Roman times?
as far as I know, he hasn't been convicted which means the year and a half of torture and psychological abuse should be enough to throw the case out. Not to mention your president on public camera claiming you're guilty when you haven't even gone to trial... the US gov't should release him to show it still trusts and respects its people, but obviously it does not, and it is our enemy of free speech.
He was not afforded the rights dictated by the constitution. He was not afforded the rights dictated by the constitution
Those rights are human rights which are protected by the Constitution, not granted by it. US jurisprudence does not recognize the right of a person to contract away human rights (e.g. you can't sell yourself into slavery).
The UCMJ is subordinate to the Constitution, so Manning's constitutional rights still exist. It seems they've been infringed.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
some of which could get people killed.
That sounds an awful lot like the argument used by the government during the pentagon papers trial (New York Times Co. vs. United States). How about showing us the innocent civilians, human rights activists, informants, etc. who have been killed as a result of the leaks?
Meanwhile, Reuters has the video that shows its journalists being killed by a US helicopter strike. The people of the United States have been given a glance at their government's activities, which includes information on the enormous intelligence power that the DEA has amassed. In the middle east, the documents were a catalyst for revolutions that ousted tyrants from power.
Manning broke the law, and it is hard to feel sympathy for someone who knew the danger and chose to leak the documents and videos anyway. However, the leak has been a boon for democracy and a reminder that the US government keeps far too much information secret.
Palm trees and 8
In the end it seemed like a big bowl of nothing
How about the fact that the DEA -- supposedly a law enforcement agency -- has amassed such vast signals intelligence power that dictators are demanding DEA assistance in spying on political opponents? We knew that the war on drugs was out of control before the leak, but this gives a clear indication of just how out of control things are, and shows us why the government considers the DEA to be a member of the intelligence community. It is also a warning sign, because unlike the CIA, FBI, or NSA, the DEA is allowed to engage in both foreign and domestic operations, including intelligence gathering.
Palm trees and 8
Neither is releasing 100K classified documents just because maybe there might be something in there that might be incriminating. If you got specific evidence of something illegal there are proper ways to handle that. Publishing hundreds of thousands of basically unrelated secrets because someone might find something not so nice in there is not a soldier's right, duty and obligation.
Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
Kull: She told me she was 19!
Not exactly:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Later, of course, you swear loyalty to the President, your officers, UCMJ, etc., but I suppose one could argue that since this part of the oath comes first, if there is a conflict between the former and the latter, this part would be more pertinent.
SSC
How about paying for child sex slaves?
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
So you want Manning punished for publishing classified info.
Do you want those who improperly classified info to be punished, as well? For had such info not been classified in the first place, Manning might not have been motivated to release everything.
:(){
After Disclosures by WikiLeaks, Al Jazeera Replaces Its Top News Director
"CAIRO -- Al Jazeera, the pan-Arab news network financed by Qatar, named a member of the Qatari royal family on Tuesday to replace its top news director after disclosures from the group WikiLeaks indicating that the news director had modified the network's coverage of the Iraq war in response to pressure from the United States...
In at least one instance, involving a report on the network's Web site, Mr. Khanfar said in the cable that he had changed coverage at the American official's request. He said he had removed two images depicting wounded children in a hospital and a woman with a badly wounded face."
The fact that American officials are censoring the media, including Al Jazeera, may not be news to you, but it does further explain why the Iraq War looked nothing like Vietnam as far as news coverage was concerned. It wasn't because it was a good war. It was because reporting was limited to what American officials wanted Americans to see.
What specific criminal activity was he trying to expose before he released those documents? Were all 100k classified documents supporting that specific criminal activity? How much of those secrets had nothing to do with the specific criminal activity?
If you have evidence of a specific crime, the whistleblower act might protect you somewhat for only that evidence. (IANAL). However, if you just decide to release a bunch of classified documents because you are pissed off at the government and you think there might be something in there to give them a black eye, well, you're on your own.
Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
Kull: She told me she was 19!
Yes. Read. You can google it. You can even watch the video, as it was released long ago by Wikileaks. He found evidence of US soldiers murdering a crowd - on camera. He tried for very long to get anyone in the chain of command to care. They did not. He did what he thought necessary when your command is hiding murders - he leaked it. You will refuse to look, as will his prosecutors and judges. This is a travesty.
1) Manning DID NOT release the documents, as you keep asserting. He transmitted them to Wikileaks, a trusted organization that kept secret whistleblowers secret.
2) Wikileaks DID NOT RELEASE a blessed thing; the New York Times, the Guardian of London, and two other papers were given the block of documents, and they and they *alone* released what they thought safe to release after careful review, in which Wikileaks did not participate. If you have a problem, take it up with the newspapers, not Manning, not Wikileaks.
3) The full documents got out after a reporter from the Guardian, I believe, idiotically published the password in an article. Go hang him.
4) Manning and Wikileaks exercise due diligence and made sure that they released nothing harmful to the troops by giving control of the release to responsible reporters who were supposed to know what they are doing. That is precisely how responsible leakers have always done it.
5) The reporters let us see that our troops had committed a savage murder, on camera, and the chain of command had refused to investigate.
6) Large number of stories are now known to us about immoral and illegal acts committed by our government and others. One of those reports triggered the uprising called the Arab Spring. Perhaps you've heard of it.
7) The US government in the past ten years has extended secret classifications to even mundane domestic reports. We even have secret laws that we cannot see, and no-fly lists that cannot be seen or contested. We have a country run in secret down to our police departments. A country that does not know, CANnot know, by law, what is actually happening in their name cannot possess the knowledge to govern themselves, making democracy itself impossible, even illegal. To become informed is to break the law. To break this blockade on truth is to spend 18 months in solitary without charge while they try to get you to falsely implicate others. To try to keep your country free and murderers tried for their crimes, they will lock you up for years without charges and then give you two weeks to get ready for trial after your mind is half gone and you haven't talked to a sane human for so long you can't construct sentences, let alone argue, against the full might of a national secrecy state that likes power and ain't about to give any up to lippy men with notions of right and wrong.
This is not about oaths and laws. This is about what is right, and what is wrong. And knowing enough to understand the different.
As that is neither a violation of oaths, nor military code, nor US law, I think the appropriate response is to determine who is at fault and hold them accountable through the normal democratic process.
The "normal democratic process", in this case, seems to be that nobody is condemned or punished for exercising an power which exceeds constitutional authority if the other side of politics might like to use that power themselves.
While all of the options for institutional recourse haven't yet been exhausted in this case, there are plenty of recent examples where they have been exhausted and essentially nobody was held accountable. Nobody, for example, will do hard time for the torture of prisoners. My hopes aren't high.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
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.
2A) The NY Times and the London Guardian informed the US government, before publishing anything, that they were in possession of the documents. They invited the US to review what was to be published, and were given the power to edit the documents so that no soldier would be endangered by publication. The US government refused to cooperate. So, please, keep this in mind when you talk about Manning "releasing" documents. All the T's were crossed and the i's dotted.
The oath isn't to protect the government it is to protect the constitution... who exactly do you think the domestic enemies of the constitution are?