Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bradley Manning Offers Partial Guilty Plea To Military Court

Posted by timothy on from the ok-but-you-had-it-coming dept.

concealment writes "During a pre-trial hearing in military court today, [alleged Wikileaks source Bradley] Manning's attorney, David Coombs, proposed a partial guilty plea covering a subset of the slew of criminal charges that the U.S. Army has lodged against him. "Manning is attempting to accept responsibility for offenses that are encapsulated within, or are a subset of, the charged offenses," Coombs wrote on his blog this evening. "The court will consider whether this is a permissible plea.""

9 of 380 comments (clear)

  1. Fascist bloodlust by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Interesting

    All the hardcore authoritarian fascists want him dead, I wonder if they'll get their wish. If so, I wonder if Adrian Lamo will feel any guilt at all for ending this guy's life for no fucking reason (attention? "Remember me? I'm still around, everyone!")

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Fascist bloodlust by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think to some degree what he revealed should be taken into consideration. The military not having to deal with whistleblower laws is a bad idea.

      If what he revealed was worth it than a BCD is probably all he should get.

    2. Re:Fascist bloodlust by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So if some horrible atrocity occurs we should never find out because the few generals decided so?

      I would rather the military suffer some disturbance of order than there be no check at on them.

    3. Re:Fascist bloodlust by cdrguru · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Clearly the military isn't withholding much, if anything, if State department diplomatic cables are discussing things.

      Why would you ever believe that the military is taking things upon itself when there is ample evidence that the government is aware and directing things?

      Now, in the new spirit of there not being any more terrorism in the world, at least there isn't if we do not call it terrorism, I suspect the military may have some views on the matter of being told to leave people unsupported in battle. The repercussions of this can certainly lead to the military simply ignoring the civilian government which hasn't really happened since the founding of the country. Having an administration that believes they can direct the military to "stand down" in the face of an armed enemy can certainly bring that about. Now who's fault might that be?

      Bradley Manning's "revelations" might have surprised some people, but clearly it did not surprise most people in governments around the world. Had it really been a surprise there would have been diplomatic consequences at the very least. So while it got some people incensed about what they didn't know their government was doing, it did no good and did not lead to anything changing. Except the rest of Bradley's life.

    4. Re:Fascist bloodlust by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Allowing actions like this, even in the spirit of whistleblowing, would severely undermine the necessary order and discipline an effective military needs. It is certainly not the business of a private to determine what type of classified information should or should not be distributed.

      That's certainly true.

      Now consider the relative values. You can have a well-disciplined and effective military, but is fascism more important than discipline?

      Several recent armies were well disciplined and private, and yet committed numerous and long-term monstrous acts against humanity. At the time of the second world war, there were "rumors" (reports? whatever) of concentration camps and mass executions, but no actual proof.

      Without checks and balances - without placing an armies actions in front of it's people - there's nothing to stop them from becoming a directed mob of savages. I'd certainly like to know what our military is doing, it speaks to our ethics as an American people. Our military represents us to the world.

      And for the record, officers swear an oath to the constitution. Manning was bound by oath to obey a higher power than the military command. You might argue before the act whether something should be made public or not, but recent events has validated his decision.

      Yes, he's a war hero. That he didn't act in the way you would have, or in a manner that you would have liked, is immaterial.

    5. Re:Fascist bloodlust by darkstar949 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How would congress even know about this? Do you think they would report such actions? Do you think congress knows about the renditions being performed? Do they know what secret prisons are used for torture?

      There is a reason that the various branches of the US military have inspector generals and a part of their job is to ensure that such things do not happen. So the US militiary effectively uses the same system that polices forces (i.e. internal affairs) as the check to ensure that gross abuses don't occur. Also, there is a whisleblowing program that is fairly well documented that should also be used to filter such abuses back to those who are in a position to do something about it.

    6. Re:Fascist bloodlust by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Says the rational American who realizes that the military may do a lot of really disgusting shit, so does every military. If we can't keep secrets, we will simply fail to be effective on the world stage.

      Why would you want to be effective in doing really disgusting shit on the world stage, though? Whistleblowing leeway exists exactly to prevent revolting things from happening covertly. Since most military organizations can be so prone to enacting terrible deeds, even more freedom should be given for whistleblowing. I understand they might need secrecy for some of their shit, but if their own agents are morally averted by what's going on, then it's a good idea to bring the debate to the public.

  2. Re:Good: he's guilty and so is Assange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They weren't secrets, it was evidence. Evidence of the crimes committed by military personnel. Anyone else who knew of the evidence, that didn't speak up, that didn't bring it forward, was aiding and abetting criminals. Period.

    So you and your "unpopular view" can go fuck yourself. He did the right and legal thing.

    Everyone else who knew about should be charged (And convicted and sentenced) with the crimes listed in the evidence, period!

  3. Re:When do the General's get charged? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Military personnel are trained not to follow illegal orders. Those personnel who followed them are the criminals.
    You can't hide *EVIDENCE* by stamping it as CLASSIFIED. Doesn't work that way.

    Evidence is evidence, and you cannot by charged of any wrongdoing when being a whistleblower - federal law covers that.

    This is a kangaroo court proceeding, where the kangaroos in question are guilty of the crimes evidenced.