Slashdot Mirror
Bradley Manning (WikiLeaks Source) Given Hearing After 2 Years In Jail
TrueSatan writes "Finally, Bradley Manning's military court case starts. He's only had to wait 2 years to be heard. Manning claims that while remanded in custody in Iraq he 'passed out due to the heat' and 'contemplated suicide.' The United Nations special rapporteur on torture found Manning's detention was 'cruel and inhuman.' Manning wants the case against him to be dismissed because his pre-trial punishment was so severe. Manning's attorney, David Coombs, earlier released an 11-page letter detailing the conditions of Manning's confinement. Manning offered guilty pleas to minor charges, but not to spying, aiding American enemies or treason, and those pleas have been accepted by the judge."
One one had so much transparency has come from this but on the other so many terrible things COULD have happened. What needs to happen from this is a NON-military group be created to act as a place where individuals within the military can report situations without the public seeing everything. That group would then be charged to release appropriate information and act on those responsible for illegal acts.
The military is supposed to have these mechanisms internally but it doesn't work at this level.
Charges dropped? I don't think there's even the foggiest chance that that will happen, but I wouldn't be surprised for some sort of reduced sentence and not life.
He's lucky he is getting a case at all. Traitors should be subject to summary execution during wartime.
"Congress shall have power to ... declare War"
- http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
I don't recall seeing any Congressional declaration of war.
The only reason that the US government has treated Manning the way it did was to break him and to try and get him to sign some fake confession that would help them to accuse Wikileaks and Assange in some form or 'espionage' or even 'treason' (which is pure nonsense, can't charge a foreigner with treason). What they did to Manning is cruel an unusual punishment no doubt.
I guess individual freedoms can go fuck themselves as long as the mob is on the side of the government on all issues surrounding 'taxing the rich', because this is what America is all about today. As long as the government promises to 'tax the rich' (and the rich are paying more taxes now than they have ever paid in America, regardless of the nominal marginal tax rates) then the government can do whatever it wants.
You can't handle the truth.
I'm sure glad the editor thought to clarify which Bradley Manning it is we're talking about. I was so confused!
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
He had a security clearance and knew what would happen if he violated it.
No good deed goes unpunished.
A formal declaration of war, besides being so outmoded an idea as to be laughable, is hardly required to be in a state of war.
Further, while no "formal" declaration exists, the current conflict in Afghanistan and the then-conflict in Iraq were indeed "authorized" by Congress. Your recollection is clouded by formal language that has not been relevant since WWII.
... the psychopathic authoritarians
I wished more people had the courage and strength that Bradley Manning has showed. A real hero!
He should be tried as a terrorist and be put to death. It scared the bejeezus out of the military, and anything that makes our military accountable, is succor to terrorists!
Plus he helped make North Africa into democracies and help kick out an Egyptian dictator, which upset out partner Israel. So that makes him, like a Nazi! Yes I went there, Nazi boy should be tried and executed, and found guilty.
I watched the documentary on Fox News and got all I need to know about him! Oh and he started the war on Christmas!
Let's be perfectly clear. There is a big difference between whistle blowing and military personnel disseminating classified information.
Yes, it's good that someone leaked the information. But, Manning was not the person to do it and Manning knew that all too well. He knew what he was doing, what the consequences were and that he was held to a higher standard than John Q. Public. That he was caught and imprisoned should come as no surprise to him or anyone else. That he doesn't like being imprisoned is precisely the point of imprisoning him. Duh!
Manning will get no sympathy form me.
Punishment. In civilized places we don't punish people. We attempt to rehabilitate them, and to prevent them from continuing to commit acts against others. But we don't punish them. The fact that the conditions that Manning has been held in equate to punishment, when he hasn't even had a trial and been convicted, is a disgrace. There should be outrage from the international community (at least those places that claim the labels "liberal" and "democratic").
Personally I'm not even convinced he leaked all that stuff. What did he get out of it? But props to whomever did leak those cables. It was a great service to the world. Highlighting hypocrisy by the US government, and also some of the nastiness done by other nations with the tacit support, and knowledge, of the US government.
Also, the pleas have not "been accepted by the judge" according to the BBC.
Why would he offer to plead guilty if he, as I suggest, didn't even do the crime? Because the conditions are so awful. It's long been the case that innocents have been tortured and then confessed. (I've been reading the Arabian Nights, and someone confessed to thieving because they were being beaten so much, and then they had their hand cut off. But they didn't actually do the crime.) Manning is being tortured.
Even just preventing him from seeing properly (taking his glasses away) is mistreatment.
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
USA! USA! USA! USA! /trolling
Otherwise you are not in wartime, therefore the claim of the arsehole OP "Traitors should be subject to summary execution during wartime." doesn't apply.
Might as well have said "People called Bradley should be shot if we are invaded by aliens who hate that name".
Why does this insanity continued to be repeated on Slashdot?
Resolutions were passed authorizing the use of force. Congress has authorized vast sums of money to wage war. Politicians in both parties have acknowledged that we are at war. Personally, I'm not particularly happy that we went to war, but it's pretty clear that we did so.
Pretty sure you need a declaration of war to have wartime, kid.
And so begins the Great War of Semantics (undeclared)!
*gets popcorn*
Right, because *everyone* knows a traitor when he sees one. No proof required. The very fact that he's accused means he's guilty!
No wonder GWB wanted to be a wartime president. Things are so much easier to get done during wartime.
He swore to uphold the constitution.
He agreed to keep secrets safe, but stuff that should not be secret are not secrets, merely hidden, and still does not constitute an oath to keep them no matter what.
PS What do you think about Carl Sagan now?
Exactly what do you call the past decade then?
Quoting the constitution to justify(or condemn) something is like citing the bible. It has nothing to do with reality; no basis in truth validly built up from axioms and apodictic propositions.
Instead of worrying about the meaningless made up rules of killing people, ignore that distraction and look at what is actually happening. A man is being tortured and possibly faces eventual murder by people that rule us.
What's the problem here? Do you think guns are only fired in wartime? Is that all you think is needed to declare war? What?
The US has not been in a state of war since 1945. Correct.
Then why are you crying "You could at least try to be earnest in your replies."? The US has not been in a state of war since 1945.
Wartime requires a declaration of war. The past decade has been a long string of (bumbling and incompetent) military actions. You know, because Congress authorized military actions, not war. Do words mean something else on your planet?
I believe they wanted to make it clear that if you operate against the industrial war machine, this could happen to you. It's not like we have a special place that we put people without a trial or anything..... oh...
Manning is a criminal and a traitor. Not a whistle blower. He indiscriminately and recklessly released classified information without any thought as to what the repercussions would be and without any knowledge as to whether or not the information detailed criminal acts or behavior.
That being said, his treatment by the military and the government is deplorable and should be treated as a criminal act as well. It won't be though, which is shameful.
Any chance you could cite an authoritative source as to what all is involved in or required by a 'declaration of war'?
I'll give you a hint... whatever you find will actually be in line with the authorizations to use military force in Afghanistan & Iraq.
Unlike the Obama Administration's actions in Libya... the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are quite legal under US law. Can't say the same about the unauthorized military action which was the first in the history of the War Powers Act to violate it.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
You do not have the same rights as a civilian under the US Military's UCMJ. The military is also not a democracy. You sign a shiat-ton of paperwork acknowledging that when you enlist. You also sign even a greater shiat-ton of paperwork regarding the rules and laws around classified materials handling. You also get "read-in" and sworn in for such handling. He has zero excuse. Tough shiat.
Maybe I didn't write enough there. What I'm trying to say is that there was a legitimate requirement for the government to be concerned for his welfare and protect him from himself. Now people reading this might not understand what suicide watch normally is and read the description and think that its a cruel and unusual punishment reserved for Manning, but its not. One should also keep in mind that he's still in the Armed forces. Daily life in the Armed forces isn't a pleasure cruise and soldiers are subjected to things that may kill them on a routine basis. He shouldn't experience any kind of tortue in prison, but we should keep in mind A) military life is different and B) life in prison sucks in the US regardless of who you are. I think this is more a treatise on how bad prisons are and how bad military life is, than any kind of cruel retribution from the government.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Military action under the War Powers Resolution (1973) that was authorized by Congress to extend beyond the 60 day max. It's one of their favorite loopholes.
Just take the traitor out and shoot him, blindfold optional. He admits his crime. The amount of damage he did is significant.
code reds are not in the book just like where the mess hall is at.
Article 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
So where are the two witnesses that saw Manning give data to Wikileaks? Also, when was war declared against Wikileaks?
That is all . . .
-- Mean People Suck
The guy violated the military code of conduct and broke his clearance agreements. He deserves the time he's going to get and should quit whining. He and his supporters know exactly what should happen and so does the the government. If it turns out american soldiers or agents died because of his action then feels like treason and he deserves the appropriate punishment.
Wait until he learns what we do with traitors who act against the interests of the United States. We vote them to a second term.
Dubya has been out of office for about 4 years now...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
Congress has to declare it, not just stamp "PAID" on military budgets. Budgets are confirmed by Congress all the time, these are not declarations of war.
Congress has allowed the military to be paid.
Not declared war.
Because you're either a dishonest prick or a fucking idiot. Given your tone, I suspect the former, despite the satisfaction that would be gleaned from labeling you the latter. Why not log in and let us see who you really are?
I think if you tried really, really, really hard you could make a more biased story submission. Can the crowd here come up with something even more biased (on either side) than this?
Helping. we are Helping the middle east.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
He is not a civilian. He is a sworn member of the military. Civilian laws only apply under very limited situations. He violated his oath. He committed espionage while on active duty. And while I agree that there has been a slow, dangerous process of reducing our civil liberties, this has nothing to do with the Manning case. It is a red herring that ignores the fact that Manning is a traitor who performed his crimes while a sworn, active member of the military. He is lucky that the military no longer pushes for capital punishment for these cases.
They usually re-elect them for another term, what's your point?
Give them 5-10 in Leavenworth?
I don't think anyone who wants him shot for treason is going to be happy with what comes down. It's the military, so it will be a real sentence with real time, but they won't give him life and certainly not a firing squad.
Obama isn't also a traitor to the working class of the US? OK, so Dubya wasn't a traitor the workers...
Let me quote this from theregister.co.uk:
I see your point. Let me ask you this:
was he a traitor to:
1) the United States of America,
2) its Government
3) the human race
I pick #2, and at the same time make him a hero for #1 and #3.
"The hallmark of humanity is the ability to move beyond sensory inputs" - Mary Helen Immordino-Yang
will the lax security situation w.r.t. the information involved be taken seriously?
too many people have too much access so the info is not a secret any more.
also Bradley was not in a condition to be granted such access. big oversight/misjudgement by the superiors.
finally the 'national security' horn is touted wayyy too often in the former USA (now UPSA or USSA) so that has no value.
Bradley has to be treated like whistle blower exposing evil governments.
..who has done more to change the face of the world, for the better, with one selfless action than decades of military action and varying degrees of sanctions,
My personal opinion of the person is that is he cracked in the head; homosexual or not. And while I do feel that he failed in his duty and honor I don't think he was in a fit state of mind. Those that put such a nut in such a position of responsibility should be held accountable for dereliction of duty. When I first herd his story I felt he was a dishonorable solider but a contentious american but now I realize believe he was a cracked nut to begin with and the military just added heat and made pop-corn.
But lets just assume he qualifies as being criminally rational at the time he did the things he did. When I think of spying or being a traitor I think of it being for the purpose of specifically benefiting another group or groups. One such group could of course be himself if he could expect some significant benefit such as money. But I don't see any of that here. He didn't pass along information in private that could benefit a foreign power. Some may even say that what he made public helped Islamist's in the middle east in their revolutions; those most opposed to his own political leanings.
I think some distinction much be made between a cracked contentious whistle blower that tarnishes his honor by not keeping his mouth shut and a true traitor that in his position could have done far more damage.
Just out of curiosity, what do you personally get out of being a troll? How does lying about history, or pretending that places like Korea don't exist ... what does that actually achieve for you? I'm guessing it's all an indirect way to attempt to paint Manning as some sort of Really Nice Guy who doesn't deserve to be given a hard time for his staggering breach of trust. But because that position is also completely irrational and held only by clueless, non-worldly people who can't muster the energy and attention span to actually understand consequences, I'm assuming you're just a 10th grader copying/pasting from zealous lefty blogs.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Traitors should be subject to summary execution during wartime.
Good thing you have no power to impose that belief.
He's getting a trial. You have a problem with that? Deal with it.
The one thing that's been amusing about the whole Manning case is how consistent his Defender’s argument has been. From the very beginning, the idea that "Manning is Not Guilty" has accepted as axiomatic, regardless of whatever evidence was provided and all arguments had to end with that conclusion.
At first, “Everyone” knew that Manning was just a scapegoat for Wikileaks and anyone who claimed otherwise was obviously A Fascist Thug.
Then as evidence came out show he had released documents, well of course he was just a whistleblower and anyone who claimed otherwise was obviously working for the Man.
When it turns out he released tens of thousands of documents he hadn’t even read and thus can’t be whistleblowing, then The Defenders invent bizarre new legal doctrines about how since the documents went to WikiLeaks not a foreign government, it’s not illegal. Or Manning is a Journalist! And so no laws apply to him, after all the legal expert Assange said so. And anyone who claimed otherwise was obviously A Fascist Thug.
Now that Manning’s own lawyers are giving up on that argument, let’s go to claims of mistreatment to get him off.
When that fails I’m sure some of the older claims of insanity will come back. Or we’ll go to the claim that HE created the Arab Spring, not the millions of oppressed Arabs who’ve suffered for decades. Nah, they’re just a sideshow to Manning. Or another favorite, Governments shouldn’t be able to have anything secret at all. That’s why the Defenders all worked so hard to defend Scooter Libby. Free Scooter Libby! they cried. And of course there is the strange issue ofis this all proof that Obama is actually A Fascist Thug?
Kevin Mitnick got his after spending five years in prison.
Folks, It's time to DOX every person involved with the Manning case, and seek criminal charges against them, and keep them in so much litigation, that others will think twice.
Release the hounds.
Even in wartime, summary execution is not legal in the UCMJ except under extreme circumstances. All capital cases would be tried by court martial, including treason. In no way would Manning have been in that situation.
As far was what "wartime" consists of, that in and of itself doesn't make any difference on whether summary execution could be employed, however. If someone in Afghanistan did something that would have betrayed his unit to imminent and extreme danger, and he could not be restrained in any way, he could be fired on and killed if need be. However, the person giving the firing order would be put in front of a court-martial to prove it was necessary.
In any event, a war declaration doesn't activate the ability for that sort of execution in the field, it's just an understood requirement of military operations. War declarations tend to be political cover for when politicians feel like they need to actually enforce the ultimate penalty in court-martials, but there is nothing keeping them from executing someone in peacetime under the UCMJ if they commit a capital offense.
Most people don't comprehend the difference at all.
WAR, the last actual WAR the USA was involved in was things like the "Korean Wars" or Vetnam. However, as noted by others, these "wars" we keep claiming to have, are in fact called... Operations.
We redifined what War is, by calling it Operations we have change the way battles are handled, We no longer send in waves after waves of soldiers to fight on a battlefield with death as a certainty. Today, we send in specialized units, platoons, or groups of equipment to get the job done in as quick of timeframe as possible.
When we(USA) wen't back to War with Iraq during Bush Jr's term, Americans were told this would nearly be a one week War. and technically, our invasion wen't so well we actually did have Iraqi forces taken over within the first week. The second week, was finish off, and clean up the remaining hold outs. Until we found Saddam in a hole, the Operation was completed. However, following the additional 5+ years of being in Iraq, we have since had two or three Operations since.
Do we call all of these multiple operations under the one idenifying term "War" because when you put them all together, is pretty much adds up to one?
I agree, the United States hasn't really been AT war since 1945. And people today really don't understand the details regarding such. It is just easy for the media, and for most people to just call it a war, because Terrorism is War, and War is Terrorism.
"Don't Forget to Salt the Fries"
...Written more than 200 years ago in an extremely bizarre english by a group of drunk freemasons. No country on the planet, not even Iran or North Korea, would ever keep a person in prison for two years before a trial. Maybe dictatorship regimes use unfair trials, which is still more than no trial at all. I guess the americans don't really care, most of them are overweight, alcoholic and watch some trashy reality show on TV, and they're happy with that. And in march there's the Superbowl, so it's all okay.
Don't be surprised if now only mexicans and latinos move to the US, forget the highly educated european graduates, they live in countries whose constitutions still have a meaning, and most of them make more money where they are.
Yes. No one is likely to try Manning for treason. They will likely try him under the Espionage Act and give him jail time. At most ten years, I'd say. It's probably a little harsh, but we can't have PFCs deciding that they are going to start spewing classified materials scattershot on a whim. The military is making an example out of him, and frankly, I'm not sure I blame them. It's a very serious issue if you can't trust your own people.
As for it being "torture", well until someone tells me that they are sleep depriving and water boarding him, I'd say that's hyperbole. I understand that solitary is not fun in the slightest, but there are good reasons to put someone who is being tried because they can't keep their proverbial trap shut in solitary.
Korea? Yup, know it exists. Doesn't mean that the USA declared war in Iraq.
I love the internet.
I will. I will also make my opinion of the situation public, as is my right. You have a problem with that? Deal with it.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't think any one is pretending that he didn't actually release the material. He's definitely guilty of something, it's only a matter of determining what he is guilty of.
Of course, if he wants to argue that it wasn't him and it's a frame job, then I'm all ears, but no one is suggesting that he isn't responsible. All people are saying is that they think it was the "right thing to do". That doesn't mean it wasn't illegal.
" actually understand consequences"
Oh boy, does that also apply to entities like I dunno, the military. You know the bit about consequences. Or are they exempt form everything?
Regardless of Mr. Mannings outcome, the "average american" would still view him as a spy/traitor/terrorist sympathizer.
This trial will end in two ways... either he is found not guilty of all charges and he let go; or he is found guilty of the minor charges, while the major charges are dropped and the judge finds his pre-trial confinement as punishment enough for the guilty charges and lets him go.
Manning is small fries. This trial is also taking the spotlight away from General Penetration (I mean Petraeus) mistress who had tons of secret documents, etc. on her personal laptop.
Previewing comments are for sissies!
Where are the military tribunals for those who committed torture under the Bush Regime.
Where are the military tribunals of evangelical officers and generals for proselytizing to the troops.
Where are the Espionage Act prosecutions of Libby, Rove, Armitage et all over revealing Valerie Plame's status as an undercover CIA officer. Who worked on non-proliferation, something a weee bit more important than than cables where the "worst" result was embarrassment to the U.S.
Where are the criminal prosecutions for mass warrantless wiretapping.
Where are the criminal prosecutions for murder-by-drone.
Where are the criminal prosecutions for the bankers that looted the economy.
And finally, where are the Concerns for military procedure when it comes to Obama's unlawful command influence?
Using the civilian or military justice system to shield your friends and yourself while threatening your political enemies with life in prison or even death is simply disgusting, as are those who excuse it.
The US has not been in a state of war since 1945.
The US has _CONSTANTLY_ been in a continuous state of war against someone, some thing, or even its very own citizenry since at least 1947.
Whether or not the US Congress has made any official declaration of war or not... is totally irrelevant to the underlying issue at hand. The fact remains the same.
captcha = "repress" how fitting.
We vote them to a second term.
Old news! It was close to three decades ago that Reagan was re-elected.
Shithead. Go get your snuff movies from the gutter like normal, you sick fuck.
You're no better than those freaks making videos chopping off people's heads for breaking "Islamic law".
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So, you're saying that quoting the law to explain why the law applies to a legal case has nothing to do with reality?
Treason during war is a capital crime under the Constitution. Manning allegedly committed treason. Congress did not declare war. Therefore if Manning is convicted of treason, he can't be executed for committing treason during war. QED
The point is a declaration of war and a state of war IS an anachronism to the point that summary execution during wartime isn't done because there is no war time anymore, there are extended military actions under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, usually, but not always, accompanied by a UN Security Council Resolution. So just like declaration of war is an anachronism, so is summary execution during wartime is an anachronism.
Trying to use a semantics argument against a legal framework argument by saying that semantics don't matter, except in the case where the semantics say you get to feel justified by ending another human beings life (a fellow American citizen, no less) is also completely irrational and held only by clueless, non-worldly people who can't muster the energy and attention span to actually understand consequences.
A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
He willfully volunteered to join the military, willfully took an oath to defend the the nation and the Constitution... then willfully , deliberately, and intentionally committed acts of treason. I'm not so sure he should rot in prison, a firing squad would cost so much less taxpayers dollars. Now I'm not particularly fond of many of the things our nation's federal govt is doing these days, but when a soldier grossly betrays his fellow soldiers in such a heinous way, then he is worse than the enemy.
Congressmen and Senators are selling out the Constitution every single day, bit by bit.
i see none of them being convicted of treason and sent in solitary confinement for 2 years awaiting an already decided trial.
You are absolutely right, the UCMJ has rules above and beyond what a civilian population has to deal with.
One of those is Article 10. http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/digest/VB3.htm
Article 10 creates a more exacting, more rigorous requirement for a speedy trial than the 6th Amendment alone. United States v. Thompson, 68 M.J. 308
Mr. Manning has spent nearly 1000 days in pretrial confinement. The UN special rapporteur on torture has also found his treatment to be cruel and inhumane.
The government has broken many rules in their treatment of Mr. Manning (using a dentist as a psychiatrist? LOL!) It would be fair punishment for the government if the charges Mr. Manning has not yet pleaded guilty to are dismissed. Perhaps then the government would remember that it, too, has rules that it must abide by.
:(){
Manning wasn't treated any differently than any other maximum-security detainee, especially one displaying signs of mental illness. He was kept under suicide watch for the first six days which included being held naked until he was deemed not a risk to himself. The rest of his time has been in isolation.
Manning has entered a plea which, if accepted, would subject him to a maximum sentence of 16 years. According to AP reporting:
"Earlier Thursday, a military judge, Col. Denise Lind, accepted the terms under which Private Manning would plead guilty to eight charges for sending classified documents to WikiLeaks". The judge’s ruling does not mean the pleas have been formally accepted. That could happen in December. But she approved the language of the offenses to which Private Manning would admit, which she said would carry a total maximum prison term of 16 years.
Manning may have a legitimate complaint for a "speedy trial" appeal but he will have to deal with the fact that the defense team has also asked for delays. And he should be thankful that the extended investigations into his motives and the motives of the recipients have apparently removed the charge of treason from above his head. He could be facing life in prison, or DEATH!
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet (I, v, 166-167)
"Yes, and Bradley Manning gets to decide what secrets are worth keeping?"
Yes.
Each officer swears an oath to uphold the constitution and that is based on their decision.
And No too, because a criminal act is a criminal act: shooting civilians is a crime. Covering up that act is a crime. And evidence of a criminal act cannot be suppressed by slapping "Classified" on it.
For exposing the MASS MURDER of civilians in IRAQ that the USA and ALLIES have done in the name of GETTING THEIR HANDS ON OILFIELDS, to the count the extimates are more than ONE MILLION DEATHS of which 90% civilians.
HE SHOUDL GET THE NOBEL !!!!!
I'm not going to pass judgement on whether Manning is ultra hero or uber villain, but there's a structural problem here. Why on earth was a PFC given access to all of this stuff- the handling of sensitive information of this scale and import is surely something that should have been tasked to the Officer Corps- those people who are hand selected for their intelligence / moral courage / self discipline etc.
I can understand the work being done by senior NCOs, but a PFC?
Concluding that the suicide-watch procedures are unquestionably intentional torture for the purpose of future deterrence is jumping to conclusions. A military man being made to strip to his underwear at bedtime is not the same thing as thumbscrews and the bastinado. Believe what you like, but I am certain that Manning's military jailors do not want, under any circumstances, to be blamed for allowing him to commit suicide.
It also forbids unlawful command influence:
So everyone parroting "UCMJ! UCMJ!", I have a simple question for you. Do you want Bradley Manning immediately released, given the Commander-in-Chief's textbook case of unlawful command influence, or are you a hack engaging in situational ethics?
Dismissing scathing, uneducated, righteous indignation with simple facts. Ouch!
Manning's disclosures were illegal and contrary to secrecy orders, so the Whistleblower Act is totally irrelevant.
Thank you for the parenthetical explanation in the summary title. Please continue this as standard, editors!
I wonder if the Slashdot community will support a conviction if he is found guilty with sufficient evidence. How many will actually follow the case, look at the facts, read the arguments, and would then, if found guilty with sufficient proof, support his incarceration?
Because the reality is, he broke the law. Whether you agree with his ethics or not, he broke the law.
I would also like to state for the record that Manning is a fool and is going to jail over nothing. There was no effect on anything in the world from the released cables. I mean really, what did we learn from his release? That civilians were being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Everyone knew that already, and those claiming to be shocked were just looking for an excuse to support their existing beliefs. The wars were already winding down; the release from Manning did nothing to start that or even accelerate it. No one has gone to jail or been prosecuted for anything that was released in those files. In fact, as someone who actualy read many of those files, the only things that were truly surprising in those documents was 1) the shcokingly poor job at redaction that Wikileaks went through to protect the names of intelligence sources and informants (many of which are likely dead now, thanks Manning!), and 2) the extreme level that the US military goes through to PREVENT civilian casualties, which is far greater than any military in all of humanity's history.
I challenge anyone to point to one concrete thing that can be directly linked back to the release of these documents that in some way resulted in some sort of justice: someone's criminal activity was exposed and they were prosecuted, etc. I have yet to see anyone point that out and, assuming that there is nothing, then Manning released the documents and broke the law for nothing and he goes to jail because of it.
Is the issue of having security clearance. When you get it, you agree (in the formal legal sense) not to release classified information under penalty of law. People with security clearance are held to a different standard than those without, when it comes to classified information.
So ya, a person in Manning's former position, a military member who has access to classified data, is held to a very different standard than civilians.
last delcared war was WW2. THere was no war declared in Vietnam, only a "police action"
*sigh* I just love to see all the US Haters crawling out of the woodwork every time there's a Manning/Wikileaks story around. Please, children, walk a mile in The Man's moccasins before you judge them.
my opinion? Sorry, he spilled the beans. In an earlier era he would have been shot on the spot.
Yeah...we re-elect them!
How did his superiors act in a way to give him protections under the WPA?
A non-American here.
I've been following the discussions about Bradley Manning on Slashdot very closely. I see that, as time passes by, the American Slashdotters become more and more convinced that he is guilty and should be convicted. That he acted both illegally and wrongly.
OK, let's assume that he is guilty (both legally and morally).What should he have done? Shut his mouth like the rest of the sissies in the US military? But this is forbidden by the US constitution. Many of you say that there are proper channels and he should have used them. Why? How many war attrocities have emerged through these channels (because now we know that they exist)?
What if Bradley Manning hasn't chosen to act in this illegal manner? Well... nobody would knew about the attrocities executed on behalf of the American population. And their (your) conscience would be clean...
I think everyone has seen the video of the US Apache killing obvious cilvilians. The crew making jokes and laughing about it. I bet the families of the dead might think differently about "no one's life is immediatly at stake".
So you are saying if you are a military officer, and you find evidence of criminal behavior, and you believe that it is condoned at the highest levels, and that reporting it through proper military channels would do nothing, that they should just sit by and let said criminal behavior continue?
I believe the term you are looking for is "Moral Obligation". It might have been against the law, but given the circumstances may have been necessary. Manning may have to pay for that decision, it depends how they try it. Likely he is screwed as I can't see politically how the US will allow it. Which means the case will ultimatly be decided politically rather than perhaps just on the merits, which isn't great.
Anyway he might have done it a bit differently, and had a better arguement to defend himself with (like being a bit selective). I just know after seeing some of that stuff... well I do not doubt it would never have gotten released, none of the people would have ever been disaplined, and that the actions were definatly wrong.
The basic definition of Laws are what the moral majority believes to be right. I would like to think any american could watch that video and say, no that is morally wrong, and we will not have that, thus it being unlawful. Arguing that there is a pre-existing law that would prevent anyone from knowing about those unlawful acts, I am not sure is correct either.
To know the enemy, one must first know something . . . .
.Israeli Vileness
American Vileness . . .
Following the United Nations' vote on Palestinian autonomy, the representative of the USA (I'm very sorry to say), Susan Rice, uttered the most atrociously vile, crass and insulting speech against that vote and the Palestinians.
Hillary Clinton's remarks were only slightly less insulting, but that was to be expected from a Clinton. (Surprisingly, Chelsea Clinton has finally departed McKinsy --- perhaps there remains hope for at least one Clinton?)
The UN vote accords the Palestinians living on occupied lands a unique UN status --- too long in the coming --- similar to that of the Vatican, which was granted sovereignty in 1929 by fascist Benito Mussolini, primarily for the purpose of acting as a conduit for money laundering during the war (WWII).
(The position of the International Chamber of Commerce at the United Nations, in perpetuity, no doubt enjoys far, far greater power and perks.)
The vile remarks by Rice and Clinton, representing the Obama administration, do not represent the sentiments of millions of Americans, other than AIPAC, JINSA and neocon Christian extremists.
The depopulation policy of Palestine, taking many forms and exhibiting many variations, was first formulated in Israel back in the 1960s, when an intelligence study extrapolated a majority population of Palestinians by the year 2000.
It has since been fully documented that immediately after the events of 9/11/01, the Israeli government took historical video footage of a group of Palestinians celebrating, and broadcasted that video on Israeli and American television, propagandizing the event in the most despicable manner possible, to the Israelis' advantage.
Whether it was such vile propaganda as that, or the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
we must never forget --- or ignore --- the war crimes of any country or state-involved entity.
We should always beware of the propaganda of Zionists (and understand that not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are Jews) --- whether it's a recent Zionist-authored book claiming that the Vietnamese assassinated President John F. Kenney (*$&#&*@*(@), or the silly drivel from Zionist Jonathan Kay, a fellow at the next version of PNAC, or Project for a New American Century, the Foundation in Defense of Democracies --- as neocon as neocon can get (remarkably, Kay received an incredible amount of coverage multiple times for his little-read book on "conspiracy theory" on NPR, and APM, and PRI, and CBC, etc.).
When State Department spokesperson, Victoria Nuland, prattles on and on, please be advised that she is the wife of one of the founding members of that former outfit, the ultra-neocon PNAC, and it was Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who reappointed that guy from George W. Bush's inner circle, Marc Grossman, to her staff, the very same Grossman who was fingered by Sibel Edmonds as a member of a nuclear secrets-selling gang.
These activities aren't really political, simply portrayed endlessly at the level of political theater.
When Nixon and Richard Helms' CIA expand a fortune to overthrow the Chilean government, which led to the assassination of their military commander-in-chief, and the eventual takeover by the incredibly murderous Gen. Pinochet (Project Fu/Belt), they were working at the instigation and behest of the multinational corporations, led by ITT.
When in 1969 a SEAL team (Sea Air Land special warfare commandos) designated Delta Platoon SEAL Team One, went into a Mekong village to capture a Viet Cong leader who was supposed to be there, they killed civilians --- to preserve their stealth --- on the way in and on their way out, killing 21 civilians --- the elderly, women and children,
.... I'll bet you can accept a whole bunch of stuff I don't EVEN want to contemplate.....
When in 1969 a SEAL team (Sea Air Land special warfare commandos) designated Delta Platoon SEAL Team One, went into a Mekong village to capture a Viet Cong leader who was supposed to be there, they killed civilians --- to preserve their stealth --- on the way in and on their way out, killing 21 civilians --- the elderly, women and children, without finding any VC leaders (their officer leader would be awarded a medal for this op!).
President Kennedy originally created the SEALs as a military aid to pro-democracy movements and anti-dictator insurgency movements around the world, not as an assassination squad against innocent civilians.
That mission was wrong!
When Nixon had Richard Helms' CIA expend a fortune to overthrow the Chilean government, which led to the assassination of their military commander-in-chief, and the eventual takeover by the incredibly murderous Gen. Pinochet (Project Fu/Belt), they were working at the instigation and behest of the multinational corporations, led by ITT. Thousands of Chilean citizens were "disappeared" by the mass murderer Pinochet --- that mission was soooo wrong I don't even wish to contemplate the vileness of it.
....your torture to a demise would be the only thing I would find acceptably amusing, sonny.
and add about a thousand more zeroes to FriendLurker's brilliant comment. sgt_doom
"Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant. Whistleblowers may file complaints that they believe reasonably evidences a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety."
Are you saying that uploading content to wikileas was him filing a complaint as was his right? Something tells me there are some rules for filing complaints and disclosing classified information to general public is well outside those rules. So he is not protected by the WPA because he did not follow the procedures for filing a complaint. He is just a kid who did a really stupid thing that also happened to violate several laws. He is now being prosecuted as such.
I say you are a traitor. By your own beliefs, you should now be summarily executed. I suspect that you would prefer my evidence to be properly reviewed in a timely manner before we get to the execution, yes? So would Bradley Manning.
I believe that what he did was "right".
(though - I think that he technically went about it in the WRONG way - in terms of an un-selective massive data-dump. It was reckless and stupid.)
I am actually PLEASED at the overall effects of what he did. Operational Security is a necessity for our civil security, and defense. But when it is abused, it enables policy abuses, and destroys democracy. I think that every person in the world really deserves to understand the political truth of how the world works, and how our superpowers maintain their empires. It is a very dirty business, and it needs to stop. I don't want to see democracy used as a tool to put backwards salafist theocratic dictators into power - but I also believe that this is a problem that will correct itself over time (probably decades, and probably - unfortunately, with much more bloodshed. I don't see any other way to have solved that problem.)
I am also shocked and embarrassed at the horrible way Bradley Manning has been treated. If we don't respect rights - if we don't respect the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" - then we really have begun to fail as a civilization. It is just tragic. I don't give a fuck what you *believe* a person has done. They're still a person.
All that said:
I think that Bradley Manning violated his SF-312. As a term of his service - this is a contract HE read, and signed, and jesus fuck, you sign this thing and you comply with it - you don't like what you see going on, you report it through proper channels. What he did, dumping out a flash drive to unknown foreign individuals like that. That was just wrong. I'm not an advocate of capital punishment - but he certainly should be very harshly punished, if found guilty. I just have a problem with the procedures of how they're prosecuting him. It's actually kind of self-defeating, when you look at the bigger picture.
The fascist abuse of our system of classification of secure operational data - both military, and diplomatic, is fucking killing us. It gives cover to bad actors. It allows people to do completely horrible things in the name of the USA, without any oversight, and without having to answer to any authority. I'm really happy these fuckers got outed. But I'd be MUCH happier if we could reform the system, so that:
1. Guys like Bradley Manning can safely, conscientiously object. Without having to become traitors. People should be able to blow whistles, and not be threatened with maltreatment and medieval detainment practices of the exact type we're trying to overthrow in the middle east.
2. Guys like Scooter Libby can't abuse their privileged positions for political purposes.
3. Our state department can't abuse their privileged positions as cover to run side businesses for arms-smuggling, and drug dealing, and propping up fucking assholes like Hosni Mubarak, and Pervez Musharraf, and - as long as it was convenient, Saddam Hussein.
4. Our DoD and CIA can't do that either. (see - Smedly Butler).
Now as this applies to Assange - I am hoping that once this Manning issue is resolved, State will leave Assange the fuck alone, and he can go back to doing what he was doing - which was revolutionizing modern journalism.
Your BS has been debunked time and again throughout this thread. Please stop pretending to be ignorant of this fact.
Every congress member swears an oath to uphold the constitution, to violate that oath is a crime against their country. It would be treason. Yet the supreme court has struck down laws as constitutional. Why is it that whenever this happens, all congressmen that voted yes on those laws do not get tried for treason based on the violation of their oath of office?
If this person is punished for treason by violating his oath, all congressmen that have had a part in instating an unconstitutional law should be punished by an equal degree.
Why don't we just summarily execute you instead? You know, if that's the level of savagery the fuckwit subsection of the US population aspires to, then why not?
You are correct, it is a very serious issue when you don't trust your own people. And his superiors had already proven they could not be trusted and the channels for exposing them have already proven by history to be highly ineffective in this day and age so you have any other idea he could have used to expose them?
Sorry, but his superiors were/are traitorous dogs to this nation who should be shot by firing squad for their actions. They took everything our parents, grandparents and so on fought and died for, threw it out the window and pissed on their graves. My grandfather fought in World War 2 and the actions on Manning;s superiors is an attack on everything he fought for and many had died for.
It is hardly an anachronism. If they actually declared the war, you'd see very quickly how not very anachronical that is. Declaration of war is not for the benefit of the enemy. It is for the benefit of the commander-in-chief and the military forces and triggers special laws and regulations for the war time.
Whoever said "The truth will set you free." failed to convey the fine print.
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
If you read it you will find a more complete picture of my thoughts on Buffet, if you then have any question, I'll be happy to respond.
you know damned well you will not respond to the majority (if any) of responses to your "thoughts" on Buffet. anything that does not support your assumptions about how the world works, even if they are properly sourced and framed in reality, you will promptly ignore.
and being as your message about buffet started by misspelling his name, and didn't even make it to the third line (or even past the first line, depending on how it is rendered) without an outright bald-faced lie, there is no reason to expect that you want to have a discussion on the matter. you are just here to try to get like-minded people to vote your comments up (although if you want your comments voted up, you should put them someplace where they will be read - ie, not in your own journal entry).
As I recall, while working as a Personel Records Specialist with 1st Infantry Division, US Army in Vietnam, if someone was confinded in the stockage for more than 30 days and not courtmartialed then all charges were dropped, he was released from confinement, and the stockade time was no longer considered as bad time.
Sure... let's go ahead and convene a hearing by my superior officers wherein the testimony of hundreds of witnesses to my treasonous acts will be heard. What's that? I don't have superior officers? Numerous, regular background investigations have confirmed my trustworthiness as a TS-SCI holder? There aren't hundreds of witnesses to any treasonous acts I may have committed? Huh... well, I guess these two things are TOTALLY FUCKING DIFFERENT, then. Maybe you should STFU until you understand what it is you're talking about, eh?
Laws and regulations that have gone hand-in-hand with our nearly persistent state of war since 1973 -- something everyone in this thread has been trying to tell you for two days, now. A formal declaration is irrelevant in regards to the powers you think are "triggered" by it, and has been for a very long time.
Hang the treasonous little faggot... put the video on WikiLeaks.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/01/1166253/-The-Torture-Techniques-Used-on-Bradley-Manning
The UN and Amnesty International both call his treatment torture. And he was being sleep deprived, in addition to other fun treatments.