Bradley Manning Offers Partial Guilty Plea To Military Court
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.""
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.