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."

Comments

A formal declaration of war is required

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Re:Case dismissed?

[besalope]

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.

Your constitution?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:... likely outcome

[howardd21]

I do not know why the parent was modded to -1; I was in the military for 12 years and also happen to highly value privacy of personal information and freedoms, and freedom of speech. But there is a necessity of trust in the military that is essential to the mission, and he knowingly broke that trust.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:... likely outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

When you are in the military, you agree to follow the chain of command. If you don't like it, don't work for the military and then start complaining about the rules. You can sit outside and complain about the rules all you want and in fact many people do. Military doesn't have much problem with people sitting on the sideline complaining what the military does - it simply doesn't matter - their chain of command starts with the commander-in-chief, and they are given orders which go down the line, and resources to fulfill them. That's how the system works.

Also, military does have mechanisms to address problems that arise in the military. But deliberately breaking all rules, and giving confidential information to foreign nations, no matter whether you agree with it or not, is straight up the definition of treason. If you don't agree with what your country does and do such things, you are committing treason - the intent might be as noble as you want, and the beneficiary nations may like what you're doing, but from the point of view of your country it is treason, and if you get caught, you will be prosecuted for treason. Bradley Manning, if he indeed did what he is accused of, will be considered a traitor. It's up to the court to determine whether this is the case, and all the whining about it is not going to change that.

Those people are big boys, they should understand basic definitions of their actions. Somehow in this age, because of how relatively peaceful last 60 years have been, a lot of people have lost (or never acquired) some basic concepts.

Re:Who cares

[Hatta]

Under the Military Code of Justice you are NOT innocent until proven guilty.

UCMJ Article 51(c) reads in part:

(c) Before a vote is taken of the findings, the military judge or the president of a court-martial without a military judge shall, in the presence of the accused and counsel, instruct the members of the court as to the elements of the offense and charge them--

        (1) that the accused must be presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by legal and competent evidence beyond reasonable doubt;

Re:This is truly a difficult situation

[FriendlyLurker]

It's called the Office of Special Counsel and it has demonstrated its complete and utter failure. No whistleblower in their right mind would attempt to use it given its history:

While the Department of Justice relentlessly pursues, prosecutes and imprisons inconvenient whistleblowers, high-ranking bureaucrats who violate their rights are usually coddled by the system. The crooked wheel of justice crushes those at the lower levels of the government and pushes up criminals in high places.

• Knowingly and willfully ignoring whistleblower disclosures;
• Dismissing and closing hundreds of whistleblowing complaints without investigation
• 
  Deleting hundreds of files pertaining to whistleblowing disclosures and complaints of retaliation and reprisal;
• 
  Rolling back protections for federal employees against discrimination based on sexual orientation;
• 
  Staffing key OSC positions with cronies who shared his discriminatory views;
• 
  Engaging in retaliatory activities against OSC staffers who opposed his wrongdoing;
• 
  Assigning interns to issue closure letters in hundreds of whistleblower complaints without investigation;
• 
  Intimidating OSC employees from cooperating with government investigators;
• 
  Misusing prosecutorial power for political purposes;
• 
  Reducing the backlog of cases pending at the OSC by 56% percent by closing cases without an investigation and destroying electronic files;
• 
  During the fiscal year of 2008, the OSC filed 0 corrective action petitions with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB);
• 
  During the fiscal year of 2008, the OSC obtained 0 stays from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB);
• 
  Bloch reassigned his perceived critics within the OSC to field offices across the country – giving them 10 days to accept, or else they'd be fired;
• 
  Bloch imposed retaliatory transfers upon OSC staffers he perceived as having a "homosexual agenda";
• 
  OSC under Bloch rarely recognized legitimate whistleblowers, typically only when the whistleblower has already prevailed elsewhere;

UCMJ also forbids unlawful command influence.

[Uberbah]

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) are rules above and beyond what the civilian population has to deal with

It also forbids unlawful command influence:

Unlawful command influence (UCI) is one of the major reasons the Uniform Code of Military Justice was adopted after World War II. Unlawful command influence is prohibited under UCMJ Article 37(a).

UCI is considered a âoemortal enemy of military justice.â See United States v. Thomas, 22 M.J. 388, 393 (C.M.A. 1986). Thomas is the famous Third Armor cases. In the recent case of United States v. Harvey, 64 M.J. 13 (C.A.A.F. 2006), the court said,

This Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that the military judge is the âoelast sentinelâ in the trial process to protect a court-martial from unlawful command influence. . . .

        because the inherent power and influence of command are necessary and omnipresent facets of military life, everyone involved in both unit command and in military justice must exercise constant vigilance to protect against command influence becoming unlawful.

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?

Re:This is truly a difficult situation

[FriendlyLurker]

Little if any of what Manning exposed qualifies as corrupt or criminal

Yeah, right: You dont count anything in this short list as corrupt or criminal?? If so, your either a troll, a shill or grossly uninformed... take your pick.