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

[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.

... 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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[__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: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.

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

[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.

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:Cruel and unusual

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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?

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: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.

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: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: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.

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..

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: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: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: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: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: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!

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

[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.

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: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;

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.

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.

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?

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.