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

This is truly a difficult situation

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This is truly a difficult situation

[FriendlyLurker]

The shenanigans go much deeper than you realize:

"The mass surveillance and mass interception that is occurring to all of us now who use the internet is also a mass transfer of power from individuals into extremely sophisticated state and private intelligence organizations and their cronies," he says. Assange also discusses the United States’ targeting of WikiLeaks. "The Pentagon is maintaining a line that WikiLeaks inherently, as an institution that tells military and government whistleblowers to step forward with information, is a crime. They allege we are criminal, moving forward," Assange says. "Now, the new interpretation of the Espionage Act that the Pentagon is trying to hammer in to the legal system, and which the Department of Justice is complicit in, would mean the end of national security journalism in the United States." [includes rush transcript]

Re:This is truly a difficult situation

[overmoderated]

There is no government in this world that serves a purpose but its own.

Re:This is truly a difficult situation

[Java Pimp]

It's called the Office of Special Counsel. The Office of Special Counsel provides "a safe conduit for the receipt and evaluation of whistleblower disclosures from federal employees, former employees, and applicants for federal employment."

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;

Re:This is truly a difficult situation

[GodfatherofSoul]

Well, the US tends to act like a surrogate government for Israel's interests

Re:This is truly a difficult situation

[flyingsquid]

It's called the Office of Special Counsel [osc.gov]. The Office of Special Counsel provides "a safe conduit for the receipt and evaluation of whistleblower disclosures from federal employees, former employees, and applicants for federal employment."

The law protects whistleblowers, the question is whether Manning is a whistleblower. A whistleblower is someone who tells the public or the authorities about corrupt or illegal behavior. Little if any of what Manning exposed qualifies as corrupt or criminal, so he's not protected as a whistleblower. Even the most famous release, the "collateral murder" video of an Apache attack helicopter slaughtering journalists in Iraq, wouldn't qualify because it was an accidental killing; it doesn't even qualify as negligence, since the pilots and the military can argue that when journalists are embedded with heavily armed insurgents carrying AK-47s and RPGs, they can hardly be expected to recognize them as press. I do think Manning did a real service in releasing this video- it shows the real costs of war in the most horrifying possible way, something we should remember before we decide to plan another invasion. But unless humanity gets together and decides to outlaw war and make civilian casualties illegal, exposing the brutality and tragedy of warfare does not qualify as whistleblowing.

Even if that incident or other incidents did qualify as whistleblowing, it wouldn't get him off the hook however. Snarky comments made by U.S. diplomats don't qualify as corrupt or illegal, so there is no chance that his lawyer can argue that releasing those cables was justified under a whistleblower law. I sympathize with his aims and his treatment may be excessive, but it doesn't change the fact that he broke the law.

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.

Re:This is truly a difficult situation

[painandgreed]

The law protects whistleblowers, the question is whether Manning is a whistleblower. A whistleblower is someone who tells the public or the authorities about corrupt or illegal behavior. Little if any of what Manning exposed qualifies as corrupt or criminal, so he's not protected as a whistleblower. Even the most famous release, the "collateral murder" video of an Apache attack helicopter slaughtering journalists in Iraq, wouldn't qualify because it was an accidental killing; it doesn't even qualify as negligence, since the pilots and the military can argue that when journalists are embedded with heavily armed insurgents carrying AK-47s and RPGs, they can hardly be expected to recognize them as press....

Its been a while since I've looked at that case, but IIRC, the really bad part wasn't that it happened, but that they lied about it and tried to cover it up. Yes, it was bad that a journalist got mistaken as a combatant and killed. However, instead of stating that and looking bad, the military covered it up, but the act of covering it up just made them look worse when the coverup was revealed.

Re:This is truly a difficult situation

[pluther]

The concept of a free press being necessary for the safeguarding of freedom and democracy, and holding a nation's leadership accountable to the citizenry did not originate with the baby boomers.

As much as Thomas Jefferson made a big deal about it, it wasn't even an original notion with him. (Hint for the historically challenged: he was not a baby boomer)

Re:This is truly a difficult situation

[kilfarsnar]

I don't believe in "national security journalism". Hopefully as the baby boomers die off, we can get over the Sixties-worship that makes people think "national security journalism" is even a thing.

It's a thing whether you believe it or not. Sometimes the government, military or intelligence agencies do illegal, immoral or generally bad things. In a democracy, or a republic, the citizens should be able to find out about those things so they can hold their leaders to account. If no one asks, no one will find out.

If you are one of those authoritarians who thinks the government, military or intelligence agencies should be able to break the law and do terrible things without public interference to further our national interest, well then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Re:This is truly a difficult situation

[Java Pimp]

Your post (and that article) describe the failures of Scott J. Bloch, not OSC as a whole. Scott J. Bloch, pleaded guilty to criminal contempt of Congress and is no longer the head of OSC. Whether or not his sentence was fair or too light is another discussion.

The point is, he was investigated and prosecuted for his actions. The government takes corruption in its ranks very seriously and the OSC was set up to handle just that. Even those at OSC are not immune to prosecution.

Re:This is truly a difficult situation

[Phrogman]

Think of how much sooner this might have happened if someone in the know had leaked the information to a site like say Wikileaks when it first became apparent he was abusing his powers.

We need whistleblowers and we need the media. We might not always be very happy with what they uncover but in the long run they do us all a favour, more than harm.

Re:This is truly a difficult situation

[jkauzlar]

far left loonies who are objectively pro-Sharia

The same far-left that's pro-women's rights and religious freedom? Sharia law is so right-wing it makes Paul Ryan look like Jerry Garcia.

Re:This is truly a difficult situation

[Anubis IV]

Generally speaking, to be considered a whistleblower, you need to be exposing a specific action and have cause to believe that doing so will protect others.

I mean, if I knew that a criminal was going to a particular psychiatrist for counseling, it would not be okay for me to break into the psychiatrist's office, steal all of his taped sessions with his patients, and release them to the public in the hopes that there was something there that talked about illegal stuff. It's privileged info, I have no specific knowledge of any particular criminal activities that might be being discussed, I'm not supposed to even have that information in the first place, and I have no reason to believe that releasing those tapes will save people.

The same is true of Manning, based on everything we've heard. He accessed confidential information he was not authorized to access. It's pretty clear from the mass of data that Manning released that he had absolutely no idea what the vast majority of it was. Hell, it took teams of journalists months to comb through all of it. And he didn't cite anything in particular, nor did he cite anyone specific that he thought he could be helping with this stuff. That some of the information described criminal activities does not make him a whistleblower. It might make him lucky, however, since it looks like a nice justification after the fact. What he did was reckless.

Re:This is truly a difficult situation

[FriendlyLurker]

Your post (and that article) describe the failures of Scott J.

Your are correct, but think: Who appointed Scott J. Bloch to that position, who is protecting him in the courts, and who is appointing his replacement(s)?

Blame one man all you want, however it is the whole institution that has positioned itself against whistleblowers (as demonstrated beyond any doubt by the relentless bipartisan persecution of them).

Re:This is truly a difficult situation

[Anubis IV]

Let me start by saying that, you're reading quite a bit into what I said, putting things in my mouth that were never there to begin with. Just because someone does something without moral or legal justification does not mean that everything that comes of it is bad, which is what you seem to believe I think. I do believe some good "for the public discourse" came of what he did. Quite a bit, in fact. That doesn't change that what he did was unjustifiable as an act of whistleblowing, nor can you create valid justifications after the fact, since the nature of a justification is that it needed to be valid for making that decision at that time. Given that he had no way of knowing what was in those files, using them as a justification is erroneous and disingenuous. See: my previous analogy.

Moving on...

Move of [sic] the goal posts why dont you.

I'm sorry that the correct definition is inconvenient for you, and I can understand your frustration. That said, I had hoped everyone here would be interested in actually getting to the bottom of things, rather than picking definitions that served their preconceptions and wishful thinking, so if correcting a standard that was misplaced by someone else is moving the goalposts, then so be it, I'm guilty of having done so.

As for why I believe the original definition was inadequate, I had to study the topic of whistleblowing quite a bit, since I was a teaching assistant in one of the nation's leading engineering ethics courses for several semesters during grad school. The standards for what's considered morally justifiable are actually quite a bit higher than most people around here realize, and whistleblowing really should only be used as a last resort to deal with a specific harm that can be prevented.

For instance, one of the common sets of criteria (DeGeorge's) for when it's morally permissible (if 1-3 are met) or morally obligated (if all five are met) to whistleblow is:
1. The potential harm is serious and considerable.
2. The employee reported their concern to their immediate superior.
3. The employee exhausted every possible channel within the company.
4. The employee documented the issue sufficiently enough to convince a responsible, impartial observer about the impending harm.
5. Disclosing the information would actually prevent the harm.

I think it's safe to say that #1 was likely true (but it's pretty much always true when you're dealing with military and diplomatic affairs), but the rest are either untrue or questionable at best. We have no evidence that he approached his direct superiors or exhausted all available channels. In fact, plenty of other military commenters here have pointed out appropriate channels for dealing with his concerns, none of which he made use of. There's no evidence (at least that I've been presented with) that indicated he believed his disclosure would prevent a particular harm, nor was his disclosure properly documented, as I've already said.

Another set of criteria for moral permissibility that's well-known and approaches things from a perspective of personal responsibility is the following:
1. What you will reveal derives from your work for an organization.
2. You are a voluntary member of that organization.
3. You believe that the organization, though legitimate, is engaged in a serious moral wrong.
4. You believe that your work for that organization will contribute (more or less directly) to the wrong if (but not only if) you do not publicly reveal what you know.
5. You are justified in beliefs 1 and 4.
6. Beliefs 3 and 4 are true.

In this case, most of what he revealed was entirely unrelated to his work, which renders #1, #4, #5, and #6 false, though I'll allow that #2 and #3 are quite likely true. Since this is already a TL;DR post, I won't reproduce a full additional set of criteria, but I will mention that you can find criteria with clauses that specifically discourage or forbid whistleblowing in cases where revenge or retrib

... likely outcome

[elfprince13]

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.

Re:... likely outcome

[jasper160]

I don't think he will get less than twenty years. The current administration seems to have a hardon for any crime that is internet or leak releated.

Re:... likely outcome

[Registered Coward v2]

One thing to note on a courtmartial is acceptance of a plea on some charges does not mean you can't be tried on the others. His pretri detention was done in accordance with military law which differs from civilian in a number of ways, so even though his trial was not started as quickly as normal or that things were rough in Iraq may well have no impact on the outcome. What is key is Manning new the rules he agreeded to, was convinced to break them and now is on the hook for his actions.

Re:... likely outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

That is about the most uneducated, ignorant and apathetic comment I've read ina while. He was in the military, and there are strict guidlines governing classified documents. This includes punishments for breaking the rules. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) are rules above and beyond what the civilian population has to deal with. An individual is made aware of the rules and the consequences at the beginning. He knew what he was doing, and the consequences. He is lucky that all the prosecution is going for is a life sentence. In time of war, and with charges of treason, he could be put in front of a firing squad.

Re:... likely outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

That is about the most uneducated, ignorant and apathetic comment I've read ina while. He was in the military, and there are strict guidlines governing classified documents. This includes punishments for breaking the rules. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) are rules above and beyond what the civilian population has to deal with. An individual is made aware of the rules and the consequences at the beginning. He knew what he was doing, and the consequences. He is lucky that all the prosecution is going for is a life sentence. In time of war, and with charges of treason, he could be put in front of a firing squad.

Does the UCMJ contemplate the use of torture ? Because torture is what Manning has had to endure for the last 2 years awaiting for a trial. This trial is a farce, as were farce the trials held in the old good Soviet Union.

Re:... likely outcome

[dkleinsc]

His pretri detention was done in accordance with military law which differs from civilian in a number of ways, so even though his trial was not started as quickly as normal or that things were rough in Iraq may well have no impact on the outcome.

The UCMJ is very clear: military personnel do not relinquish their constitutional rights. Yes, military law is different, but they're still required to have a speedy and public trial, and are still prohibited from engaging in cruel and unusual punishment. Manning has a strong argument that both of those were violated.

Re:... likely outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

They made sure he would be a liability if he ever got out.

Whoa whoa whoa, I think I see what you're saying. That once you cross that line of performing unforgivable acts upon someone you don't want to let them go off and chat to others about it. But there is no way that we would EVER allow Bradly Manning to simply disappear. Not without some serious repercussions. They'd have to stage some sort of in-prison assassination and frankly, I don't think the people in power are competent enough to pull of that sort of conspiracy and keep it secret.

No. Manning will remain alive and in contact. He may not appear on David Letterman, but if he's smart he'll eventually write a book. Or rant enough to someone can write a book out of it. So, RIGHT NOW, Bradly Manning, having been tortured, IS A LIABILITY. It's the sort of example that people can wave in the face of the smiling diplomat and call bullshit when they say "trust me". It's the sort of example that UN members can whip out and laugh at when the USA demands they stop torturing our spies.

Re:... likely outcome

[Lumpy]

" He knew what he was doing, and the consequences. "

I highly doubt that. He was a fucking moron for talking to a known Government informant weazle. if he "knew what he was doing" he would have kept his mouth shut, Instead of bragging.

Re:... likely outcome

[tnk1]

You know, there's a difference between being ordered to shoot some civilians in Vietnam, and deciding that you are going to break published classification rules that everyone is aware of, when no one's life is immediately at stake. And, more to the point, grabbing everything you can on the classified network, so you can release it en masse to a third party that isn't even run by people from your own country.

I'm sorry, but that's not heroism or "not following an illegal order", it's crass irresponsibility.

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.

Re:... likely outcome

[characterZer0]

trust in the military that is essential to the mission

What if the mission is wrong?

Re:... likely outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

Good.... and you know what there is also a necessity for trust in the military and it's actions. When the military commits crimes and they cover them over in the name of national security then there is no trust. After all that if you still trust and believe, then you are a fool.

I'm sorry I don't believe in national security at all costs, because it's usually just bullshit that those at the top invent to cover over their own crimes and inadequacies.

Wiki leaks uncovered some things that we had every right to know. I mean after all it was all being done in our name right?

Re:... likely outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

That is about the most uneducated, ignorant and apathetic comment I've read in a while. He was in the military, and there are strict guidelines about killing civilians. This includes punishments for breaking the rules.

It appears as if everyone in the military is breaking the rules but Manning is the only one being punished. May I ask why you have decided to speak up against Manning but not against the others? Do you in some way think that killing civilians is less of a crime than informing the general public of this action?

Re:... likely outcome

[drakaan]

...Does the UCMJ contemplate the use of torture ? Because torture is what Manning has had to endure for the last 2 years awaiting for a trial. This trial is a farce, as were farce the trials held in the old good Soviet Union...

You're conflating two different issues. One is whether the conditions of his confinement were acceptable or appropriate, the other is whether he did something sufficiently inappropriate as to be considered treason.

Does a long confinement that might be considered torture change the events that led to the confinement? No. It may well be the thing that keeps Manning from facing a life sentence, since it helps place public favor more on his side.

As was mentioned before, there are channels by which unlawful acts can be reported without concern for retribution. It's not a perfect system, but it does work. Manning could have contacted the Adjutant General and made sure that both operational security and the law of war and human rights were respected, but he chose not to.

That was his decision, and none of us can say whether it was the most correct thing to do, morally, but we can definitely say that it was unlawful, according to the rules that Manning agreed to follow when enlisting in the US military.

Re:... likely outcome

[TemperedAlchemist]

I hope, sincerely, that the charges are dropped. Not only did they go out of their way to prosecute someone who did the right thing (which was the right thing, because we were killing civilians, which the military was trying to cover up). But now they're ignoring due process and the rights that he is granted, the rights that the same military purports to protect, strong arming some little guy who just wanted to do the right thing and serve his country.

I would like to see him get a presidential pardon and a full investigation into our military and how they're treating our prisoners. This is unacceptable of the United States's military. What you fight for doesn't fly out of the door just because it's convenient or you want it to. And they should pay the price for violating our most sacred of fundamental principles that have kept democracy alive.

At the very least, I hope to see the judge dismiss the charges with prejudice because the military ignored due process and violated the eighth amendment.

And to think I considered becoming an officer, pathetic. This is why I gave up on that pursuit, because for all of the honor and duty the military so proudly touts, it is failing to live up to those expectations. It's like they don't even know the meaning of the word. There is no honor in torture, and their duty left them when they abandoned our fundamental rights.

Re:... likely outcome

[MasaMuneCyrus]

I can accept the idea that Manning's actions were crass, irresponsible, stupid, and cowardly. Instead of seeing some injustice and leaking information of that injustice to the outside world, he chose to just grab everything he could and dump it. In retrospect, the information that he leaked was probably not dangerous to anyone, and it did, indeed, expose deep tentacles of corruption in the US government. However, there is no way that he read everything that he leaked, and he did, as you say, just send massive amounts of classified information -- most of which he had no idea of the content (because there was too much to read) -- to a foreign third party with a sometimes unclear agenda.

HOWEVER, none of this warrants torture, and as an American I hope that Manning's lawyers win their trial. It is an unprecedented chilling effect and incomprehensibly unjust that, in the United States of America, a foolish whistleblower would be tortured to set an example for future whistleblowers. Torture of any kind, mental or physical, is clearly unconstitutional and is unquestionably both anti-American (as in, it betrays the values that we base our country's existence on) and evil.

Re:... likely outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

The USA is not currently at war, nor does the UCMJ override constitutional rights. Manning still has a right to a fair trial under peace time conditions. What the military has done here is illegal and should invalidate Manning's trial.

Re:... likely outcome

[Preacher X]

Little bit of education here. The US is involved in many of these "no attack" aggressions because while the enemy may not have attacked us, they have attacked US allies in the NATO organization. As a member of NATO we are obligated to come to the defense of other NATO members and shocking as it may seem, the US is considered the strongest military power in the NATO organization. This means that more times that not, the US is called upon to defend NATO members and thier allies.

Re:... likely outcome

[fredrated]

Let me guess: in your 'book' revealing the existence of concentration camps and gas chambers would be treason?

Re:... likely outcome

[elashish14]

Yes, some level of trust is necessary. But are you suggesting that this trust would go so far as to include hushing up about innocent and indiscriminate civilian deaths, torture and inhumane treatment, and all of the other information that has been revealed by Manning and Wikileaks as a whole? And do you mean to suggest that there should be zero accountability or oversight or public awareness of all these horrible atrocities? It's this reason why I can't stand it when Americans constantly shout about supporting the troops. What kind of country is supposed to support this? And even worse, with no oversight or accountability! Instead, the military holds accountable those who reveal them, thereby implicitly condoning these actions.

It makes me sad.

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:... likely outcome

[ValentineMSmith]

You are both correct and incorrect. Service members do relinquish SOME constitutional rights. Most notably the right to free speech. In some circumstances the right against double jeopardy does not apply either (you can be tried in a civilian court (or foreign court), and then be tried under the UCMJ for the same offense if the military chain of command feels it is warranted). Granted, USUALLY the chain of command will not press charges against a service member if that service member is already charged with the crime in another jurisdiction.

In this case though, you are correct. PFC Manning has a right under Article 10 to "... inform him of the specific wrong of which he is accused and to try him or to dismiss the charges and release him.", along with an Article 13 right against "... be[ing] subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement upon the charges pending against him, nor shall the arrest or confinement imposed upon him be any more rigorous than the circumstances required to insure his presence, but he may be subjected to minor punishment during that period for infractions of discipline."

I do not know PFC Manning, and am unfamiliar with his case other than what I've read and seen in the news. I do not know if the Army is guilty of the allegations PFC Manning has brought or not (unfortunately, a good chunk of the media is demonstrably anti-Military in that they love soldiers, but hate the institution), so expecting evenhanded coverage here is, in my opinion, expecting too much. I hope that the Army is not guilty, as I'd like every 'i' to be dotted and 't' to be crossed when they lock him up for the rest of his life for what he's done.

Re:... likely outcome

[Uberbah]

I can accept the idea that Manning's actions were crass, irresponsible, stupid, and cowardly.

Based on what set of facts from an alternate universe? Everything he leaked was of a lower classification than the Pentagon Papers. He tried airing his objections within the chain of command.

The only ones engaging in crass, irresponsible, stupid and cowardly actions are the authoritarian tools holding a whisteblower to a higher standard than the criminals who's actions the whistleblower revealed.

Re:... likely outcome

[elashish14]

deciding that you are going to break published classification rules that everyone is aware of, when no one's life is immediately at stake.

Really, no one's life is at stake? You realize that by not exposing innocent civilian killing, you are complicit in allowing it to happen and making it occur more, correct? I'd say that it's much more likely that someone would not hesitate to kill someone if they knew there is no repercussion for it.

The US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't ending because they were so massively successful - they're ending because they're so unpopular. Now true, it's mostly because it has been such a waste of money, but people do see the all the really bad stuff that's happening too and start putting pressure on their leaders to end it. People see what's really going on here - it's not really about killing enemy combatants when over half of your casualties are innocent civilians. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that these leaks have done a small bit to ensure that fewer lives are lost.

Re:... likely outcome

[erroneus]

A veteran here too.

I hold that the mission is currently wrong. It was wrong when I was in... I just didn't know it at the time. The fact is, we aren't fighting for our freedom. We're fighting for someone's continued profit and domination and to ensure that the US remains the dominant power and by extension, the people who use the US's power to their will. I think everyone, regardless of the side of the issue they may have, agrees that the US and the US military have exceeded its purpose under the constitution. "Private interests" are now the current mission of the US military and the US government.

So yes. The mission is wrong.

Re:... likely outcome

[DeadCatX2]

His pretri detention was done in accordance with military law which differs from civilian in a number of ways

Actually, Article 10 creates a more exacting, more rigorous speedy trial requirement than the 6th amendment. So you are correct, military law differs - and military law in this case favors the defendant even more so than civilians.

United States v. Thompson, 68 M.J. 308

Re:... likely outcome

[characterZer0]

What do you do when the mission was good when you joined, but went sour before your term is up? Going AWAL is frowned upon.

Re:... likely outcome

[Uberbah]

You know, there's a difference between being ordered to shoot some civilians in Vietnam, and deciding that you are going to break published classification rules that everyone is aware of, when no one's life is immediately at stake.

Because the Global War of Terror ended when Bush left office, or is it still ongoing? Meaning there are plenty of lives still at stake and you're rationalizing authoritarianism?

Re:... likely outcome

[cayenne8]

From the article I read..I keep asking myself...what torture are they talking about??

They mostly all (from the article) sounded uncomfortable...but torture?

The cells being hot, non AC in Iraq...might be the closest to torture...but I'm guessing NO prisons are air conditioned places like in the US. Hell, likely as not, I'm picturing the temperatures being about the same as what the ground troops experience daily while on patrol, but in the cell...at least it is in the shade?

But the rest of it....well, he did say he was suicidal, and when you're on suicide watch...they make sure you don't have things to kill yourself with, and likely trying to keep him out of general population where other prisoners might try to harm him due to his charges?

The guy joked about killing himself which what small amount of things he had (clothing, etc)...you don't expect them to take those away after hearing that?

I mean, that's on the level of joking about a bomb at the TSA stop at the airport....seriously....?

Like I said, from the CNN article...while unpleasant, it sound FAR from torture...

Re:... likely outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

Nazi soldiers and the SS would claim the same thing, as would all of the soldiers in the genocide atrocities in the Balkans. Blaming the chain of command is BS in the real world.

Re:... likely outcome

[tnk1]

You know, there's a difference between being ordered to shoot some civilians in Vietnam, and deciding that you are going to break published classification rules that everyone is aware of, when no one's life is immediately at stake.

What if the classified information was about orders to shoot some civilians?

And if he had only released information about orders to shoot some civilians, you might have a point. Even then, by releasing it, he could have opened up completely innocent troops to reprisal attacks without warning.

What happened is that he released reams of information, and some of that happened to cover that. He also did it in such a way that it would be hard to foresee the impact of what might have happened. I mean, the Arab Spring came about in part because of those cables, and that was huge, it has been bloody, and its not clear that everything is going to be okay at the end of it.

Re:... likely outcome

[Larryish]

In time of war?

As in, formal declaration of war?

What war?

Re:... likely outcome

[TheCarp]

> 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.

However you also trust that that chain of command is working in the best interests of the people. When it becomes obvious that they are not, like when they are not actively prosecuting incidents like we saw in collateral murder, then I would say they broke the trust first.

Re:... likely outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, there's a difference between being ordered to shoot some civilians in Vietnam, and deciding that you are going to break published classification rules that everyone is aware of, when no one's life is immediately at stake. And, more to the point, grabbing everything you can on the classified network, so you can release it en masse to a third party that isn't even run by people from your own country.

I'm sorry, but that's not heroism or "not following an illegal order", it's crass irresponsibility.

Just releasing a subset of the information would have led to a situation where the military would have said that the information is false.
Just informing U.S. media would have led to a situation where the government had told the news station to keep quiet.
Following orders would have led to a situation where the killing of civilians had continued.

What Manning did is not irresponsible. Everyone who kept their mouth shut is irresponsible.

Re:... likely outcome

[thomasjj70]

He is going to do significant jail time.. At least twenty, I would not be surprised if he gets life.. The evidence and PFC Bradley's comments made this case extremely strong.. t is the largest security breach in our history, and for this he will be made an example out of.. Lets not pretend what occurred here. He arbitrarily dumped gigabytes worth of sensitive data, most he did not know what he was releasing, although he knew it was sensitive.... He wasn't performing an act of whistle-blowing, he was seeking to commit damage.... He is a PFC, if he had altruistic goals he should have approached his leadership, he didn't alert anyone of his concerns...... As a System Administrator, he knew he is not permitted to release anything, regardless of the content.. The reality is he did not have "need to know" purpose and thus he violated DoD rules for just reading it.. In the DoD, just because the data exists and one has permissions to this data, does not give him or her the authorization to read it.. Just read his published chat logs.. You will get an entirely different perspective on PFC Bradley... Thankfully he will break rocks into smaller ones and have plenty of time to do some soul searching.. Hero he is not..

Re:... likely outcome

[thomasjj70]

Lots of people think they are doing right, then again lots of people are morons.. LOL

Re:... likely outcome

[tnk1]

Do you realize that by exposing civilian killing in a way that makes it look like a coverup, you could easily get people killed as well? It's not like you suddenly release this material and everything goes roses and rainbows again, right?

If a group of US soldiers goes psycho on some civilians, those soldiers aren't likely going to be the ones who get killed when the population goes nuts after hearing about it. The soldiers who get killed are the ones who didn't kill anyone and they get shot at or roadside bombed. And then more civilians die when they get hit by stray munitions from both sides.

I'm here to tell you, I don't think it is right that civilians get killed, and if there is a cover-up with no one being punished for it, then that needs to change. That doesn't mean that it is right to use any means to get that effect.

I'm not sure in this case that justice deferred is justice denied. Up until very recently, we were still hunting down and trying Nazis from WWII. There is no reason that these murderers can't be brought to justice some day. It may be worth letting the murderers walk long enough to make sure no one else dies on their account. That's why I don't want PFCs making these kind of decisions. They rarely understand the real score. Blind Justice is not always worth the cost to others.

Re:... likely outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

there is a necessity of trust in the military that is essential to the mission, and he knowingly broke that trust.

True, but at the end of day, the loyalty of people in the armed services should go to the American people. And if they knowingly are misleading the American people, or withholding information about such events, not releasing it is also treason. Right?
Manning released a lot of documents, many completely irrelevant, some very significant with regards to why the US went into Iraq, etc...

Re:... likely outcome

[berashith]

If the Arab spring came up because of the information in the cables, does that make the one who released the cables guilty, or the ones who WROTE THE FUCKING THINGS?

It seems as if some people's power retention is based more on not getting caught and exposed rather than doing a good job, which would be a bad gamble that requires significant harm to anyone who may expose. Sorry Bradley, you're screwed.

Re:... likely outcome

[Remus Shepherd]

When you're in the military you follow the chain of command and trust that your superiors are working in the best interests of your country.

If you find evidence your superiors are not, then you have the choice to exercise the soldier's prerogative: Shoot your commanders in the back, and face the consequences. You will give up your own freedom, but you will remove a commander who was harming your country.

Manning effectively shot his superiors in the back. Now he has consequences to face. A good soldier would stand up, say 'Yes, I did this and here are my reasons', then go to jail and hope that history vindicates him.

Re:... likely outcome

[chispito]

" He knew what he was doing, and the consequences. "

I highly doubt that. He was a fucking moron for talking to a known Government informant weazle. if he "knew what he was doing" he would have kept his mouth shut, Instead of bragging.

Not, "he knew what he was doing" as in, "He was a pro spy." More like, "he knew he was breaking the law."

Re:... likely outcome

[nosferatu1001]

"Just following orders" is no defence, morally or legally

Re:... likely outcome

[alexandre_ganso]

Sorry, which NATO countries had Iraq attacked, again?

Re:... likely outcome

[davydagger]

the military is litterally a fascist society.

95% of all court martials come back "guilty". You have far less rights than you do in a civil trial, and "jury of your peers" is replaced by a panel of officers.

Article 32 hearings are notrious for being "not fair".

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...

It was pretty well established at Nuremberg that "I was just following orders" is not a defense for acting unconscionably. Whether Manning ignoring what he saw would have been unconscionable is another matter, but the black-and-white view of never questioning orders is, to be blunt, wrong.

Re:... likely outcome

[TheCarp]

> You're conflating two different issues. One is whether the conditions of his confinement were
> acceptable or appropriate, the other is whether he did something sufficiently inappropriate as to be
> considered treason.

He did agree to fight in a clearly unjustified war.....thats pretty treasonous in my book. Those releases were the only positive thing he did for the people of this country, which is who his allegiance is supposed to be to, above and beyond the leadership.

Re:... likely outcome

[tnk1]

How about both?

Killing civilians is really bad, and covering it up may well get more of them killed. However, covering the actions of some soldiers up who had mental breakdowns might just make it possible to keep the peace long enough for a stable government to form who can then be paid reparations at some later date. The lives of the people lost are in the hands of the people covering it up and they bear responsibility for whoever dies due to their cover up.

However, if you go and expose that, you could start riots, even civil war. Do more or less people die in those riots than would have died to some crackpot soldiers? If you go down that path, you bear responsibility as well. You can't just blissfully scream that the information wants to be free. Maybe it does, but you don't have to be the one who does the freeing.

Re:... likely outcome

[Alien Being]

And that is why I will rarely thank modern veterans "for their service". When they tell me that they were against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I apologize for not preventing the real traitors, primarily Bush and Company, for risking soldiers lives to accomplish their greedy missions. When they tell me that those wars were righteous, I walk away.

I would shake the hand of Bradley Manning. I'd be tempted to punch GWB in the face.

Re:... likely outcome

[flimflammer]

You know, "support the troops" doesn't necessarily mean support what they're being forced to do. Our troops are people, just like any of us civilians; they're just in dangerous circumstances. There's lots of ways to support them without agreeing with what's happening.

Unless you think we should be punishing them for being there, which would be a terrible thing to suggest as many of them don't want to be there, but have no choice.

Re:... likely outcome

[drakaan]

...He did agree to fight in a clearly unjustified war.....thats pretty treasonous in my book. Those releases were the only positive thing he did for the people of this country, which is who his allegiance is supposed to be to, above and beyond the leadership...

"Agreeing to fight in an unjustified war" is a statement founded upon an opinion, and I appreciate that different people have different opinions on that matter. That would be a third issue, which is not part of what he is accused of. One might make the case that he should have objected to his deployment orders on the grounds that they were unlawful, but he did not do that either.

Treason is a very specific charge that has to do with betraying the nation to which you are bound as a citizen. Whether a particular person feels an act is treasonous doesn't make it so, only the facts and the act itself can do that, and it doesn't appear that anyone in a position to charge Manning with a crime thought that his agreement to fight in a justified war was worthy of investigation.

I get it. You feel that the war was wrong to begin with, he pointed out some awfulness that occurred during said war, and you believe he shouldn't be punished for doing what he did. I won't tell you that's an invalid point of view, because it's not.

What I *will* say is that none of those feelings are what this trial or the charges against him are about. Those feelings may come into play in the form of political pressure, but they have little to do with the case aside from the likely severity of his punishment.

Re:... likely outcome

[sgt_doom]

but they're still required to have a speedy and public trial, and are still prohibited from engaging in cruel and unusual punishment. Manning has a strong argument that both of those were violated.

Exactly, my good citizen, exactly --- and that is why War Criminal Obama and his gang should be prosecuted for crime just like Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld et al., and that Wall Street bunch.

Re:... likely outcome

[Preacher X]

Sorry, never was Iraq specifically mentioned. I was merely commenting on how America gets drawn into so many conflicts that seem to have nothing to do with us. In the case of Iraq, to my knowledge, that was our own doing and did not involve allied action to initiate. Although in a convoluted manner it was related to retalitory action on Afganistan, but frankly not even I agree that the transition to Iraq was handled properly there.

Re:... likely outcome

[Myopic]

Then you vote out the civilian leadership who commanded the mission.

Re:... likely outcome

[dkleinsc]

Most notably the right to free speech.

Even there, only partially. For instance, it's perfectly legal for a service member to tell another citizen that they plan to vote a particular way in an election and their reasons for doing so, or to say that they are following a particular religion (or not), etc.

Re:... likely outcome

[ValentineMSmith]

That comes with caveats as well. The service member CANNOT do so in an official capacity or in uniform (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939 for more information). Political speech is even more restricted by tradition. Technically, as long as the service member is on his own time, in civvies, and not attempting to attach his/her political work to his/her office or station in the military, everything is okay.

For enlisted service members, that's what generally occurs.

For officers, there's an unwritten code (and, like most unwritten codes, fairly rigorously - if unofficially - enforced) that the officers' corp should be apolitical, to the extent that there's a pretty strict inverse correlation between the grade of officer and the likelihood that they even vote. Civillian control of the military is drummed in from the first to the last, and, for an officer, voting comes uncomfortably close to having the military take control of itself.

All of which is beside the point, of course. PFC Manning's right to free speech stopped when he publicly leaked classified information. If he had problems with the morality of what he was doing, he should have addressed them through the chain of command. If that failed, he should have addressed them through his local congresscritter. If that failed, then maybe he should have realized that he was a PFC in a war zone, and maybe not privy to all of the information required to make an intelligent disposition of the classified data of which he was a custodian.

Re:... likely outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

Chain of Command does not mean "just following orders". It also means that if you think you have been given an illegal order, you ask for clarification, state there is the possibility of it being an unlawful order, if you still disagree you go up one step above the commanding officer and state your reservations. Side avenues are JAG anhttp://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/11/30/1416227/bradley-manning-wikileaks-source-given-hearing-after-2-years-in-jail#d chaplains. This is not legal advice, this does not cover battlefield scenarios, if you have questions ask a real JAG.

Re:... likely outcome

[rbrander]

Some of the things brought to light by the release are not just "morally wrong" in one 22-year-old's opinion, they're clearly unlawful. The UCMJ is pretty specific that not only do you have no requirement to go along with criminal orders, you have a responsibility to see the crime addressed.

When you are talking about crimes of the most pervasive sort, where support for committing them runs through the whole organization, "addressed" is clearly not going to happen with a report to the Lt 2nd Class you probably report to.

Face it: we'd never have heard of these crimes without Manning's actions. That we have heard of these crimes is a social good. There's just no getting around that.

If the results show that the harm done TO THE PUBLIC (not to some military or civilian employees who have been embarrassed) is small - and the Pentagon is clear in saying nobody was killed or injured from the released, the diplomatic fallout has been very minor - and the good done for the public is large, then any law that penalizes this action heavily is clearly not in the best interests of the public.

Re:... likely outcome

[will_die]

You need to read Mannings own words. He has said he did no go through the chain of command, he found the classified information was upset and wanted to release it. He has said he released classified material because he was upset about his breakup and after he started going out dressing as a woman.

Re:... likely outcome

[will_die]

If Hamas, al-Qaeda, Kurdistan Workers' Party, etc have me held hostage please, please, please treat me as bad as Manning was/is treated; as an alternative they can treat me as bad as the average prisoner held in Guantanamo Bay.

Re:... likely outcome

[TheCarp]

This should, perhaps, go down in history as one of the mostly diplomatically worded posts ever on /.

> What I *will* say is that none of those feelings are what this trial or the charges against him
> are about.

And this is a statement also founded on opinion. It may be an opinion shared by the prosecution, and many people. as you say, I get it :)

However, for me, that is indeed what its about and all it will be about, as the people who are prosecuting this, in my eyes, lost their legitimacy a long time ago.... the very idea that they feel they have some moral authority to torture and try him for releasing documents, while they murder people the world over.... laughable.

I don't just feel he shouldn't be punished, I applaud his actions as a decent human being.

Re:... likely outcome

[JesseMcDonald]

You know, "support the troops" doesn't necessarily mean support what they're being forced to do.... many of them don't want to be there, but have no choice.

Are you saying that a significant number of the troops were conscripted? I was under the impression that the modern military was an all-volunteer outfit, and every one of those volunteers had the opportunity to research what the job might involve before signing up.

Even in the case of conscription, for that matter, there is always a choice. One is always personally accountable for one's own actions. You don't get a free pass just because you were "following orders". Even given a stark choice between turning aggressor and dying, I would still hold aggression to be wrong, and hope that I would have the courage to accept death instead.

Re:... likely outcome

[Uberbah]

You need to read Mannings own words.

You first. The chat logs that allegedly got Manning caught for his alleged actions have him saying he tried reporting war crimes in Iraq but was rebuffed by his superiors. As for what he was saying now - bitch please. If you were subjected to 18 months of humiliation and psychological torture via the extreme isolation of extended solitary confinement, you'd be confessing to the Sharon Tate murders faster than Dick Cheney.

Then there's the slight fact that ever single one of the "hang Bradley Manning" club are engaging in extreme situation ethics. If the sticking point if the UCMJ, then you must be demanding his immediate release for Obama's textbook unlawful command influence, which is a direct violation of the UCMJ. If the sticking point is "revelation of classified data", then WTF aren't Libby, Rove, and Armitage being prosecuted under the Espionage Act for outing Valerie Plame. If the rule of law is the issue, how can you with a straight face say that Manning needs to be prosecuted, but not officials who's corruption and criminality was revealed by Manning's alleged leaks.

It's a lose-lose-lose-lose proposition for you.

Re:... likely outcome

[__aaqvdr516]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector

You don't see this pursued very often. Many people choose a very different path when confronted with something they feel they have no control over. Some do go AWOL, some do drugs, some attempt suicide, and some succeed with suicide.[1]

We aren't privy to everything he thought when he was doing all of this. I've seen enough of the military to know that there could be a number of reasons that he could have come unhinged. We'll probably never know the full reasoning behind his thoughts.

I don't think I'd have gone the same route as he did.

[1] Source is myself with 12 years of Navy service with 2 years of running a large urinalysis program and 5 years as an instructor. I've had 3 suicides, 3 AWOL, probably 5 attempted suicides, and I couldn't tell you how many positive piss tests within that 12 years. Stress does crazy things.

Re:... likely outcome

[elashish14]

They should be punishing them for lying and covering it up when they see these things happening. We know they're occurring. We know that they know. We know nothing is being doing about it. Claiming you were acting under orders didn't work for the Germans at Nuremburg, so we shouldn't be allowing it here.

Re:... likely outcome

[lsatenstein]

> 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.

However you also trust that that chain of command is working in the best interests of the people. When it becomes obvious that they are not, like when they are not actively prosecuting incidents like we saw in collateral murder, then I would say they broke the trust first.

===
The right to dissent must be included, except in war. Your commander may order you to do illegal acts. Who will be prosecuted when found out? Not the commander, that is for sure.

Re:... likely outcome

[drakaan]

...I don't just feel he shouldn't be punished, I applaud his actions as a decent human being.

I respect your stance and ability to state it clearly. I disagree, but I can understand your point of view (and my posts are typically diplomatic...helps focus on the actual discussion and not on verbal pimp-slaps).

Re:... likely outcome

[drakaan]

To the person modding this as troll, just so you know, I disagree. Someone voicing a consistent opinion without name calling or baiting ain't a troll.

Re:... likely outcome

[sjames]

Not necessarily. Informing the citizens of the United States of a pattern of crimes being committed on their dime and in their name is most certainly within his oath:

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.

Note that his first duty is to the Constitution, then to the president, and third is his chain of command (subject to the limitations of the UCMJ).

Re:Case dismissed?

[flonker]

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.

Cruel and unusual

[roman_mir]

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.

Re:Cruel and unusual

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's roman_mir again, shoehorning his political agenda into a story not related to taxes at all.

Re:Cruel and unusual

[serviscope_minor]

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).

I agree with the latter part. As for the former, I think a good part of the reason is that they assumed he's guilty and are basically a bunch of shitheads. They don't seem to realise that there is a really good reason for the presumption of innocence: not only do you put an innocent guy in gaol, but you don't catch the bad guy either!

They obviously don't care about the innocent guy, but they really ought to care about getting the bad guy.

the rich are paying more taxes now than they have ever paid in America, regardless of the nominal marginal tax rates

Aaaah and now er have slashdot's favourite capitalista. If the government taxes the rich so hard then how come Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher rate of tax than Warren Buffet?

Re:Cruel and unusual

[HungryHobo]

the second half of your post appears to have no relationship with the first half.

is it just a rant you attach to every post?

minor side note, I don't have data for the last couple of years but:

top 1% 1979, average effective federal tax rate: 35.1%
top 1% 2009, average effective federal tax rate:
28.9%
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

Re:Cruel and unusual

[Phrogman]

I think this is more about setting an example to discourage anyone else from airing the US Government's dirty laundry. No way to tell just how much evil being done behind the scenes might get out if another Bradley Manning steps up to the plate. As such, I expect he will get life without parole.

I also expect it will come out in years to come that this verdict was determined before the trial began.

Re:Cruel and unusual

[thedonger]

Aaaah and now er have slashdot's favourite capitalista [hutman.net]. If the government taxes the rich so hard then how come Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher rate of tax than Warren Buffet [go.com]?

Are you people still beating that drum? It is probably the difference between tax on ordinary income and tax on capital gains. I am not rich, but I like a low capital gains tax. First, because that money has - depending on the investment vehicle - already been taxed at the ordinary income rate. And, second, because whether I have $100K or $100M in the bank I pay the same 15%.

Re:Cruel and unusual

[aurum42]

Income tax rates are mostly irrelevant when it comes to much of the income of the "rich", including the "idle rich" and trust fund babies. The capital gains tax in the 50s was 25%. The estate tax was 77% on estates > $10E6. Both have been gutted today, with little evidence that either "helps the economy". They certainly "help" the deficit. You probably know this, and are just ignoring this in your confirmation-biased little mind.

Re:Cruel and unusual

[serviscope_minor]

Are you people still beating that drum?

Which people?

First, because that money has - depending on the investment vehicle - already been taxed at the ordinary income rate.

Well, OK, so why isn't normal interest taxable at the capital gains tax rate. And as you point out it depends on the investment vehicle.

And secondly, you seem to be misunderstnding something. If you buy stocks with taxed money, then sell them at the same price, you pay no extra tax.

You only pay tax on the difference. In other words, the money you make is not double taxed, it's merely taxed at a lower rate.

And, second, because whether I have $100K or $100M in the bank I pay the same 15%.

That's always the case: tax is not based on wealth.

Re:Cruel and unusual

[Charliemopps]

Yes, but your problem is that you're thinking that money belongs to the "people" or some such. It doesn't. It belongs to an individual. And you have no right to take it from them. A flat tax rate DOES tax the rich more... that's why it's a percentage. 30% of my salary is a hell of a lot less than 30% of bill gates. What we need to do is dump ALL taxes other than sales tax. We should have a purely consumption based tax system. The rich buy more, and will pay more. People will have incentive to save. It's good on all accounts.

Our overcomplicated tax system servers one purpose: To hide how much you're being taxed. I doubt anyone in this country, even the IRS, knows how much anyone else really is paying in taxes.

Re:Cruel and unusual

[tnk1]

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).

Why would the US government bother getting a confession for a crime to convict someone else of a crime that doesn't exist?

Yes, treason technically cannot be applied to a foreign national, but that is because the definition of the crime requires someone to actually break their allegiance, which of course, a foreigner never had in the first place.

That doesn't mean US Laws in general cannot be applied to a foreigner. They can try Assange under the Espionage Act if they like. The only requirement to be under U.S. or any other law is that you be under the control of that government. Of course, the country of that person is entirely free to ignore the US demand to turn him over, but that doesn't mean we can't try and convict him of a crime under US law if the government gets its hands on him.

If you don't believe me, hack into a French computer that is important enough for them to want to try you. Then go travel to France. See if the French don't arrest you when you show up and try you for that crime. Your government will complain, and possibly pressure France to release you, but they will never state that France had no right to try you because you are not their citizen.

Re:Cruel and unusual

[Culture20]

wealth =/= income
Inventory tax is a tax based on wealth.

Re:Cruel and unusual

[tibman]

It doesn't sound like torture to me. It sounds exactly like normal life in the US Army. People pass out from the heat all the time, who cares. Stick them with an IV, tell them to drink more water, and drive on (unless they are showing stroke, of course). At one point i was drinking 15 liters of water a day and when i did pee it was brown and wasn't even enough to fill a coffee cup. When i took my uniform off at night it looked like a cicada shell contoured to my body from all the sweat. Oh, and i enjoyed that part!

I mean, if the army wants you to stand in a broom closet all day for years on end.. guess what? That's exactly what you'll do. It's only cruel if you don't have at least 4 hours of sleep a night, food, and water (i would also add decent pay to that list though).

Even if Manning did the morally right thing, he should still be punished for doing the legally wrong thing. Two years of waiting sounds like a long time to me but i don't know anything about courts martial.

Re:Cruel and unusual

[HungryHobo]

to be fair, looking at the link i provided, neither of those years are outliers.

1993: 33.5%
1994: 34.8%
1995: 35.3%
1996: 35.2%
1997: 34.1%

2005: 30.4%
2006: 30.0%
2007: 28.3%
2008: 28.1%

Furthermore in your link you seem to ignore the difference between the marginal rate and the effective rate ie, what you're actually taxed as a percentage of your income rather than what you pay on the last dollar you earn in the year.
If there's a marginal tax rate of 91% on earnings over 100K and I make 101K that doesn't mean I pay 91% tax.
I might, through deductions and similar pay a very low rate even if I'm paying a high rate on some portion of my income.

Re:Cruel and unusual

[tnk1]

Actually, he probably did commit a crime. The Espionage Act does make it illegal for someone to assist another person in disseminating material.

In the Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not prevent the newspapers from printing the papers, as that would be prior restraint. However, they did rule that the government *could* indict and try the papers after they released the Papers. Ellsberg and Russo were not acquitted of violating the Espionage Act, but were freed due to a mistrial.

In other words, you can't stop a paper from printing whatever it wants, but as soon as it does, it becomes liable for what it prints. Even assuming that Wikileaks reaches the standard of journalism, which in my opinion is a bit of a stretch, they would still be liable.

Dude, you may not *like* the law, but I'm not repeating someone else's propaganda. It is entirely possible for you to be tried as a newspaper for releasing classified material. Do the research, you'll see what I am saying is simply factual on that account.

Re:Cruel and unusual

[mcgrew]

First, because that money has - depending on the investment vehicle - already been taxed at the ordinary income rate.

Interesting, but not entirely correct. Wikipedia says "In 2008â"2012, the tax rate on qualified dividends and long term capital gains is 0% for those in the 10% and 15% income tax brackets."

It's only short term gains that are taxed as income.

Re:Cruel and unusual

[mcgrew]

the rich are paying more taxes now than they have ever paid in America, regardless of the nominal marginal tax rates

WTF, a slashdot journal as a "citation"? The fact is, the rich are paying fewer taxes than any time since Truman. Bush cut the CGT from 25% to 15% and lowered income tax rates, and if there have been any cuts in allowed deductions I haven't heard of them, you're going to have to give a citation -- and it can't be a fucking slashdot journal or a Grover Norquist trickle down fairy dust article.

Re:Cruel and unusual

[Marxdot]

It's very telling that roman_mir's paragraph regarding the Poor Rich Men (which is completely off topic, of course, but very typical of roman_mir) is lengthier and more outraged than his paragraph on torture.

Re:Cruel and unusual

[tnk1]

1. Assange is not a USA citizen. He didn't commit any crime. You may believe it to be true, but actually US criminal code, whatever it is, it doesn't apply to foreigners on foreign land. If Assange kills somebody in Copenhagen, then they can try him criminally in Denmark. But if he kills somebody in Australia, Denmark won't be trying him.

I hope you don't think I am stating an opinion or a wish list here. I'm not. Assange is not going to be subject to US Law usually, but he definitely could find himself subject to it if he comes under US custody. And custody being handed to the US is possible if a foreign country recognizes the US law as a valid one to extradite him for.

As for your example, I think you are not clear on the underlying reality of sovereignty and international relations. It is purely based on interests and power. Denmark won't care if he kills someone in Australia only because he didn't kill a Danish citizen and Denmark has no irons in the fire, so to speak. Australia would also probably be very upset with Denmark if it made such a law. Sovereign states usually adhere to the principle of letting states deal with their own issues and their own people.

However, that's only because Denmark has no motive to become involved which would sufficiently override the consequences of pissing off Australia. Denmark *could* make it illegal for an Australian to kill another Australian in Australia and Assange would be breaking *Danish* law if he killed someone in Sydney. If Australia was annoyed with Denmark for doing so, then Australia has no recourse other than diplomacy or war to stop Denmark from indicting him, but it would usually simply be content to tell Assange that it is really a bad idea to go to Denmark on vacation.

Alternately, Australia doesn't have to turn Assange over, unless there was an extradition agreement in place that recognized that Danish law. Denmark is free to consider Assange a criminal, but they would have to use either diplomacy or war to get him out of Australia unless he came to Denmark voluntarily.

This is the principle of how sovereign states operate on the world level. I think you seem to believe that there is some higher law that countries are beholden to that keeps them from trying to legislate laws that they shouldn't legislate. There is no such entity. There are courtesies and treaties and traditions, but in the end, the highest power in the world is a Sovereign state and the highest law is the power that one sovereign state or a group of them has over other states. I am not saying I necessarily like that outcome, so please don't confuse my description with approval. I am merely stating that it is the facts about how the world works at that level.

We call this extraterritorial justice, and espionage is often considered a very specific case where extraterritorial jurisdiction is common. Assange, while not strictly intending to aid a particular country, was working against the interests of the US Government and released material considered classified. That would be considered illegal under the Espionage Act. And while that act would usually only be enforced on citizens, but it could also be enforced on spies without diplomatic immunity as well. The fact that it usually is enforced on US soil is only a matter of practicality.

Yes, extraterritorial laws and justice are considered to be controversial. And you can easily see why that would be, but it is by no means uncommon to see cases of it around the world and throughout history.

So this is not a legal issue, because sovereign entities are sovereign. They can make any law they want, they are only limited by their own agreements between them, or their internal constitutional law, and of course by the ability to enforce said law.

Should Assange be "worried" about US law? Oh yes, I should say he should be, because being an Australian doesn't give him cover unless Australia intends to try and protect him and the US has some capabilit

Who cares

[jasper160]

He had a security clearance and knew what would happen if he violated it.

Re:Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup.

I'm of the opinion that the documents that were released because of his actions are documents that should be in public.

But... He is a member of the US Military, sworn to protect government secrets. If he chooses to release those without authorization, he needs to "harden the fuck up" and face the consequences.

Real patriots take responsibility for their actions, even when it results in dire consequences. (See Rosa Parks, She didn't go "but I just wanted a seat on the bus - please don't jail me - I was roughed up, charges should be dropped!" She accepted that what she was doing was both in the public good, and illegal, and took the punishment.)

Bradley Manning caused this with his actions, knowing full well that his actions could result in HIS DEATH. He now needs to accept responsibility, plead guilty with a statement of "I did this for the public good," and accept a long prison sentence.

If he wasn't willing to accept the possibility of death or long imprisonment, *HE SHOULDN'T HAVE LEAKED THEM*

Re:Who cares

[Hatta]

Did he know he would be held for two years without trial? Nearly one whole year in solitary? Is this really how you think we should be treating people who are innocent until proven guilty? Or do you want to dispense with that entirely?

People like you are far more dangerous than Manning.

Re:Who cares

[ScentCone]

people who are innocent until proven guilty

Right! All people are the same, all circumstances are the same. All levels of trust and betrayal and consequence and risk are the same everyplace, all the time. Nobody should be held or in any way ever inconvenienced no matter what they've been caught red-handed doing, or what is placed at risk for doing so. Military personnel trusted with secure information who spitefully spew hundreds of thousands of documents into the hands of people who would otherwise have to conduct major espionage campaigns to get the same information - people who do that and conspire with web site operators to arrange for the illegal transfer and storage of classified material ... yeah, they should be treated just like a 12 year old shoplifter caught stealing gum, or someone who parks in a handicap spot at the mall.

Did he know he would be held for two years without trial?

What does it matter? He knew that he did it, and that he was guilty of doing it the moment he decided to do it. That means the end of his life, or at least spending the entire rest of it in prison for his vain drama-queen treachery. How long he sits in one cell or another during various phases of the entire rest of his life, which he knowingly wrote off in a fit of pique because he wished he hadn't taken the job in the first place ... it really doesn't matter. He wrote off the rest of his life the minute he worked with Assange's operation to find a place to park and disseminate all of that random sensitive data. Yes, he knew. He knew the big picture (life in prison, at least) - which makes the little stuff, like in which order he sat in which cell while his lawyers and the prosecutors examine the circumstances and consequences of his publishing many thousands of documents. He didn't still a truck from the motor pool, or get in a bar fight. He ripped off a mountain of data, causing trails into thousands of different directions. For a trial, it's all of those directions that will come up, not just one act. Two years is short, for that.

Re:Who cares

[jasper160]

Dangerous? More like experienced. That is how the military works, you are property of the US government. Everyone in the military with a clearance knows, especially enlisted, they will never see the light of day if they do what he did. The UCMJ is not a Tom Cruise movie, it was written by congress to give the civilian government the utmost authority over its military. Pretrial confinement is not uncommon nor is "remedial training”. Ask any vet or serving US military member about innocent until proven guilty, it is the opposite especially in non-judicial punishment (Article 15). Troll this if you like but it is most likely you know nothing of how the military authority and justice systems operate.

Re:Who cares

[fredrated]

Rule of law is rule of law. People like you that dismiss it are more dangerous than manning by far.

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:Who cares

[Hatta]

Ask any vet or serving US military member about innocent until proven guilty, it is the opposite especially in non-judicial punishment (Article 15).

What part of Article 15 allows someone to be held for two years without trial?

Re:Who cares

[T Murphy]

Whether or not you agree with him, parent is not a troll.

This situation is so utterly exposing of ...

[3seas]

... the psychopathic authoritarians

crime and punishment

[magic maverick]

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.

Earlier on Thursday, the case judge accepted the terms under which Pte Manning would plead guilty to eight charges for sending classified documents to Wikileaks.
He could face up to 16 years in prison for those charges.
Col Denise Lind's ruling does not mean the pleas have been formally accepted.

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.

Re:crime and punishment

[dkleinsc]

Why would he offer to plead guilty if he, as I suggest, didn't even do the crime?

Several other reasons I can think of:
1. His attorneys advised him that even if he hadn't done the crime, there was enough evidence (and possibly prejudice among the military jury who would hear his case) that he would be likely convicted. So a plea bargain might be the best he could do.
2. He knows who actually did it, but has chosen to plead guilty to protect someone else.
3. He doesn't know who did it, but has chosen to plead guilty because he believes that it was the right action and doesn't want someone else to suffer as he did.

You're right, it's also possible that it was tortured out of him.

Re:crime and punishment

[zanian]

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.

Not exactly. You're presenting a utilitarian model, while American law - based largely on the English Common Law system - tends to lean towards retributive justice, that attempts to punish in proportion to the crime's severity. While there are many aspects of what you are talking about in Common and American Law, saying that in civilized places we don't punish people is either a backhanded slap at your own legal system (I assume you are American because you said "we") or just false.

I'm only nit-picking because this is a serious philosophical debate about morality in law and making sweeping statements about the American legal system is way too common in my experience. This is a fucked up (but, not that surprising) situation because the guy has not gotten a trial and is being punished.

Yes, albeit a little exaggerated, here's a classic criticism of a utilitarian model of justice:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uEJRmoIDVc [youtube.com]

I couldn't find the scene where Alex is displayed to the other doctors, but that is a better example.

Re:crime and punishment

[magic maverick]

Keeping someone in jail should not be done for the purposes of punishment. Compare the conditions of, e.g., Scandinavian prisons to those of the US. In one, the focus is not on punishment, but on rehabilitation. As such, prisoners have access to TVs and other amenities in their cells. See this 2010 article from Time.

And yes, I do think that imprisoning someone if the reason is not to prevent them from committing more acts against others is uncivilized. Which sort of rules out, I suspect, the entire world as being civilized to my standards. Then again, I suspect I'm even more libertarian than most people who claim membership of a Libertarian party. Though I'm a left-libertarian, not a right-libertarian.

And I do say there is a difference between punishment and torture. In Manning's case he has been tortured. Pure and simple.

Re:crime and punishment

[magic maverick]

The point was that the USA is not civilized. And I'm not an American, it was we, in other places.

PS Dear /. coders, please put the karma bonus box back on comment, perhaps next to the post anon box. Having to load options, and reload the page, just to turn it on and off is stupid.

Re:crime and punishment

[zanian]

Yeah, I should have mentioned I agreed with everything else and the American comment was not meant to bite or anything.

Re:crime and punishment

[Baron_Yam]

While I agree rehabilitation is a worthy goal, the PRIMARY goal of a justice system should be to prevent offenses. Towards that end punishment is used as a deterrent, detention is used to remove opportunity, and rehabilitation is used to remove motive.

Once somebody has commited a crime, *society* comes first, not the convicted criminal.

That's different from what has allegedly occured here, of course, where excessive punishment that many would call torture has preceded trial.

Re:crime and punishment

[magic maverick]

Except that deterrent doesn't work. Otherwise the USA wouldn't keep having to kill people.

Deterrent doesn't work to stop crime.

Re:crime and punishment

[Baron_Yam]

Depends on the crime. Crime of passion? Never. Violent crime due to rage issues / drugs / etc. Never.

All sorts of other crimes can be deterred if the threat of punishment outweighs the perceived cost. Not 100% of the time, but it'll reduce offence rates.

Re:crime and punishment

[couchslug]

"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."

Citations needed. Yes, really.

2 years in jail without a hearing???

[Fool106]

USA! USA! USA! USA! /trolling

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?

[Ieshan]

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.

Re:Case dismissed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure you need a declaration of war to have wartime, kid.

Re:Case dismissed?

[snl2587]

And so begins the Great War of Semantics (undeclared)!

*gets popcorn*

Re:Case dismissed?

[Xphile101361]

Exactly what do you call the past decade then?

Re:In Before The Bleeding Hearts

[lister king of smeg]

How does one blow the whistle on the government as john q public when they don't have the access to classified data that deserves to be shown to the the people so that the government/military can be held responsible. Only someone with access can leak it and be a whistle blower.

Yup, they've not been in a state of war since 45.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Case dismissed?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

guanton-oh-no

[Korruptionen]

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...

Re:Case dismissed?

[DaHat]

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.

Re:Uhm....

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

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.

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.

code reds are not in the book just like where the

[Joe_Dragon]

code reds are not in the book just like where the mess hall is at.

Re:Case dismissed?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Hero

[wirehead_rick]

That is all . . .

Subject to military conduct rules - toughen up

[clay_buster]

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.

Re:Subject to military conduct rules - toughen up

[3seas]

How many military personnel do you know that didn't get the benefits they were promised?
How many had the hard reality of being pawns for psychopathic authoritarians?
How many swore to defend the USA from enemies foreign and domestic?
Why have more taken their own lives, suicide, than has been killed in Iraq?

Military code? what is that in comparison to the above?
Really not much on the scale of honesty.

Re:He thinks that's severe?

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

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:Your constitution?

[DaHat]

I always enjoy it when someone fails to read the article they link to... allow me to cite a very key part you obviously missed (emphasis mine):

For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term.

Let me repeat that: no specific format.

In fact... your very own Wikipedia article goes on to say:

This article will use the term "formal Declaration of War" to mean Congressional legislation that uses the phrase "Declaration of War" in the title. Elsewhere, this article will use the terms "authorized by Congress", "funded by Congress" or "undeclared war" to describe other such conflicts.

That sure does make it sound like your 'authoritative source' (ie what I was asking for) is making up its own delineator (just as you are).

You also claimed that:

Congress has to declare it, not just stamp "PAID" on military budgets

... I guess you are unfamiliar with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists or the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002... where in both resolutions they did what is required under the law... which does not include the requirement to use the term "declaration of war".

You are probably thinking...

Nyeh! That just proves that they didn't declare war!!! How can you declare war on 'terrorists'

Except for that we have done this before, and as two quick examples I present you with the First and Second Barbary Wars... where we went to war against pirates and used legislation authorizing force... but that lacked what you seem to be demanding... the words "declaration of war".

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Barbary_War

Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed American vessels to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."

What's that!?!?!?! Congress didn't vote on this made up concept of a 'formal declaration of war'... but did authorize force? And refers to a 'state of war' in the resolution?

What else could you be wrong about?

Q.E.D.

What a submission

[onyxruby]

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?

Re:Case dismissed?

[Lumpy]

Helping. we are Helping the middle east.

Too many missing the point

[kcurtis]

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.

Re:Too many missing the point

[Phelan]

It is a completely acceptable defense if you aren't on the losing side

Re:Too many missing the point

[hondo77]

He committed espionage while on active duty.

Even in the military, shouldn't they actually have to prove that first before punishing him?

Re:Case dismissed?

[JigJag]

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.

usa has issues in this case

[anonieuweling]

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.

He is a hero..

[snowball21]

..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,

Re:He is a hero..

[Dachannien]

who has done more to change the face of the world, for the better

Such as.........?

Re:He is a hero..

[snowball21]

Arab Spring..

Re:He is a hero..

[Dachannien]

Seriously? You're pinning the uprising of thousands or perhaps millions of Arabs against their long-time hated dictatorial governments on Bradley Manning?

I guess that's the question; was he a spy?

[BlueCoder]

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.

Re:Yup, they've not been in a state of war since 4

[ScentCone]

The US has not been in a state of war since 1945. Correct.

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.

Reasoning Backwards

[PMW]

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?

Re:Reasoning Backwards

[hondo77]

Now that Manning's own lawyers are giving up on that argument, let's go to claims of mistreatment to get him off.

That one is a compelling argument.

Re:Reasoning Backwards

[onyxruby]

That has got to be one the most poignant and best written comments I've ever seen written on the whole Manning affair.

Re:Case dismissed?

[tnk1]

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.

Re:Case dismissed?

[jftitan]

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.

Re:In Before The Bleeding Hearts

[Johann Lau]

Let's be perfectly clear. [..] Yes, it's good that someone leaked the information. But, Manning was not the person to do it

That's not perfectly clear, that's fucking idiotic.

Re:Case dismissed?

[tnk1]

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.

Re:As long as things like these exist, the USA is

[Johann Lau]

If an American grandma falls in the street, I will not help her up, or even offer her a seat.

You brought this on yourselves.

I love the internet.

Re:Case dismissed?

[tnk1]

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.

Re:Save the taxpayers money...

[ScentCone]

Yes! He clearly was on a noble quest to shed light on specific people and practices that were unjust or corrupt! Yay!

That explains why he was doling out things like the identities of people supporting the freedom movement in Iran, so that their families can be hounded by the regime there. That explains why he went out of his way to expose carefully created covert operations aimed at defaning groups like Al Queda as they and their buddies try to Taliban-ize exciting new destinations in Africa. We sure don't want to have fragile local governments there having any quiet support while they deal with groups that like to shoot school teachers in the head for teaching girls to read! Manning has bravely helped to make sure that support given to local governments in places like that is done in a way that will allow jihaddist nut jobs to better hunt down and kill those who would organize against them in such places. What a hero! What a freedom loving individual! Yay for him!

He will still be villified

[madhatter256]

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.

Bleating "but he broke the laaaaw" is BULLSHIT

[Uberbah]

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.

Re:Bleating "but he broke the laaaaw" is BULLSHIT

[jjo]

Where are the criminal prosecutions for the bankers that looted the economy.

There have been several such prosecutions. They have all failed to achieve convictions, probably because what the bankers did was not illegal.

Re:Bleating "but he broke the laaaaw" is BULLSHIT

[bill_mcgonigle]

Besides those, legality or illegality is no longer the sole standard against which military behavior is measured. The Nazis did nothing illegal but it was sure as hell immoral and the Nuremburg Trials established that legality alone is not how we judge military actors.

Re:Bleating "but he broke the laaaaw" is BULLSHIT

[Uberbah]

There have been several such prosecutions.

There have been zero such prosecutions. There have been a few civil settlements where corporate officers get a tiny fine in comparison to the amount of money they stole, a fine frequently not even paid by the executive but by the shareholders. Call us when bank robbers are "fined" by the government a hundred bucks for every hundred thousand dollars they steal, while serving no jail time whatsoever.

Contrast that to the S&L crisis, which saw ~800 prosecutions under the Reagan and H.W. Bush Administrations. A crisis 1/70th the size of the mortgage credit bubble of 2008.

They have all failed to achieve convictions, probably because what the bankers did was not illegal.

So lack of prosecution == did nothing wrong. So if Obama declined to prosecute Manning - given the exact same set of facts and circumstances - does that mean that Manning did nothing wrong? How about the W. Bush Administration - they must not have violated any laws, treaties or sections of the Constitution when they tortured at least 100 people to death, simply because Obama chose to "look forward, not backward"....

Re:Bleating "but he broke the laaaaw" is BULLSHIT

[jjo]

The S&L Crisis was caused by a large number of people knowingly committing fraud, so a large number of criminal prosecutions was warranted. The recent US financial crisis, in spite of what you appear to so fervently believe, was not caused by criminal bankers, but by foolish Federal housing policy.

In the USA, there is a high threshold for obtaining a criminal conviction, and prosecutors are chary of bringing a criminal case without substantial evidence. Civil cases are easier, and that's why these cases, only marginally supported by evidence, have been brought civilly. If the civil cases fail, how in the world do you think you could prove a criminal case?

Re:Bleating "but he broke the laaaaw" is BULLSHIT

[Uberbah]

The S&L Crisis was caused by a large number of people knowingly committing fraud

You mean as opposed to the most recent crisis, where bankers were telling the public they had never been more financially solid while privately selling their shares and securing golden parachutes; banks publicly encouraging their clients to invest in funds that the banks were privately betting against; rating companies awarding AAA status to junk derivatives; or the robo-signing scandal where US Attorneys could have charged MERS with fraud, perjury, and counterfitting?

And that's just off the top of my head.

The recent US financial crisis, in spite of what you appear to so fervently believe, was not caused by criminal bankers, but by foolish Federal housing policy.

Did Sean Hannity get around to explaining to you guys why, if the Community Reinvestment Act was so horrible, that it took 30 years to cause a financial collapse? It's almost like you're substituting reality with whatever crap you heard on Fox or talk radio.

Re:Bleating "but he broke the laaaaw" is BULLSHIT

[david_thornley]

Most of the Nuremberg Trials were about violations on international law. Nazi Germany never actually renounced any of the appropriate treaties, just violated them horribly and en masse. The arguable exception was the Crimes Against Humanity category, but much of that was also war crimes. The laws on treatment of people in occupied territories were considered inadequate after the war, but they did forbid genocide among other things.

So, yes, the Nazis did a whole lot of illegal things, and Nuremberg established that people who did that could get punished severely for such lawbreaking.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Yup, they've not been in a state of war since 4

[capnchicken]

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.

Re:Save the taxpayers money...

[Hatta]

The people to blame for all of that are the ones who have abused their ability to classify information, and who do so for no reason other than that they can. Were there some things that should have remained secret? Yes. But there were many more things that should never have been made secret.

You want to punish Manning? Sure, OK, after a fair trial. But also punish those who hid their crimes, those who failed to make complaints about those crimes, and those who failed to take any complaints that were made seriously. Anything less is a serious miscarriage of justice.

Government without accountability is tyrrany. Without transparency there is no accountability. People who misclassify documents to cover their asses are a direct threat to our national security. A much bigger threat than Manning ever was.

Re:Willful

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Nope, he didn't swear to protect secrets.

[tnk1]

Yes, and Bradley Manning gets to decide what secrets are worth keeping?

I'm sorry, no, he doesn't. Perhaps if some of that material was in imminent danger of getting someone killed, he may have had to make a snap decision to release only the necessary material to save those people. I could see that.

Instead he just grabbed everything he could and turned it over for full release to a third party that isn't even US based. I'm sorry, but that action was irresponsible and unjustifiable given the trust placed in him. He made no effort to actually work to stop anything, he just decided to go nuclear.

I don't think he's a traitor, but I hope he is used as an example to show what happens when you blatantly and irresponsibly decide you know what is best for everyone else when you are trusted to not use your access as an excuse to dump everything you can.

As for Carl Sagan, no one believes that he broke classification for the moon nuking project on purpose.

Article 10 speedy trial more rigorous than 6th

[DeadCatX2]

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.

Re:He's a terrorist

[tnk1]

It has yet to be seen whether the Egyptian dictator will not simply be replaced by a worse one who is now a lot more inimical to our interests. Or that North Africa will remain democratic.

You do realize that they were not dictatorships just because they didn't have access to our diplomatic messages, right?

He should count his blessings!

[mrmtampa]

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!

Re:In Before The Bleeding Hearts

[tnk1]

You know, when you're a PFC just out of high school, you may think you have the perspective to understand what you are doing, but you really should know that you don't. And he clearly didn't because of how he went about it.

Someone who would have been the "right person" would have understood what they were releasing and been careful about what was released and what they were trying to do with it.

And even the "right person" doing the "right thing" would still understand that they would be in a world of hurt when they were discovered. Even when you disobey illegal orders in the field, you aren't just let off with a pat on the back, they try you in a court martial for it, and then you have the chance to prove your case and be exonerated.

If Manning is going to be exonerated, his day is coming, but that day was never going to come with him living life comfortably right up to the trial.

That said, he's not getting off. You can't point to anything he did in a responsible manner that was consistent with the trust placed in him. He's no traitor, but he shouldn't get off lightly either.

No?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:No?

[tnk1]

Shooting civilians is a crime. That does not mean it is my job, or even my right to leave my post and start hunting down murderers.

How did he even know it was a "cover up". Because it was "classified"? You know that there's no statute of limitations on murder right? There is no reason these soldiers would have never been tried or convicted when that information came to light, right?

That's why we have certain people doing certain jobs. Manning was neither the only one, nor the one who was best placed to make that sort of decision.

And did he just release material about "cover ups"? Or do you just consider anything classified to be covered up? As I recall he released reams of completely unrelated diplomatic material that had nothing to do with covered up killings. Some of it just seemed like semi-snarky comments from diplomats about various world leaders. I fail to see how his actions represented a whistleblower as opposed to someone who is simply completely unable to prevent himself from abusing his security clearance.

Torture?

[jjo]

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.

Re:Torture?

[jwhitener]

Some people might argue that solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, for 2 years, is itself torture. Then there is the sleep deprivation, and the fact that he was told he was 'on duty' so he either had to stand, or sit in an upright position (no leaning, etc..). Then they intentionally reversed his nights and days, waking him at night, kept a bright fluorescent light on at all times, etc..

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/01/1166253/-The-Torture-Techniques-Used-on-Bradley-Manning

Might not be traditional thumb screw torture, but it sure seems like treatment designed to send a message to any future whistle blowers / rule breakers.

Re:Save the taxpayers money...

[Preacher X]

In truth, this is entirely because of the different set of standards applied in the military than in the government. Politicians, save for the president and others with active roles in the military and politics both, are civilians held to civilian law. Manning is a soldier held to the UMCJ and as such is held to different expectations than Holder. Different expectations result in different outcomes, which is why Manning is in jail and on trial and Holder got his wrist slapped.

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?

Whistleblower Act does not apply

[jjo]

The idea that Manning is covered by the Whistleblower Protection Act is ludicrous. Disclosures which are prohibited by law or by Executive Order do not qualify for protection. Section (b)(8) of 5 USC 2302 provides that a disclosure is protected:

...if such disclosure is not specifically prohibited by law and if such information is not specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign affairs...

Manning's disclosures were illegal and contrary to secrecy orders, so the Whistleblower Act is totally irrelevant.

Also related to that

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:Case dismissed?

[davydagger]

last delcared war was WW2. THere was no war declared in Vietnam, only a "police action"

Even the Slashdotters changed their attitude

[GbrDead]

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...

Apache Massacre

[DarthVain]

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.

Why they call an American hero a traitor....

[sgt_doom]

To know the enemy, one must first know something . . . .

American Vileness . . . .Israeli 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,

Hell, sonny .....

[sgt_doom]

.... I'll bet you can accept a whole bunch of stuff I don't EVEN want to contemplate.....

What if the mission is wrong ?????

[sgt_doom]

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.

Amusing? Speaking of amusing...

[sgt_doom]

....your torture to a demise would be the only thing I would find acceptably amusing, sonny.

Made an example of

[yusing]

Whoever said "The truth will set you free." failed to convey the fine print.

Re:Save the taxpayers money...

[ScentCone]

Yes. The 100,000+ cables he released are full of that sort of thing, mixed in with boring (but sensitive) diplomatic advisories and communication from embassy staff, etc. If you're pretending you have been boning up on the content he leaked, then you shouldn't be pretending to require citations. It's all out in the public, now, of course - thanks to that idiot.

Re:Save the taxpayers money...

[ScentCone]

Wow, you ARE a lazy troll, aren't you?

Re:Case dismissed?

[jwhitener]

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.