Slashdot Mirror
Bradley Manning (WikiLeaks Source) Given Hearing After 2 Years In Jail
TrueSatan writes "Finally, Bradley Manning's military court case starts. He's only had to wait 2 years to be heard. Manning claims that while remanded in custody in Iraq he 'passed out due to the heat' and 'contemplated suicide.' The United Nations special rapporteur on torture found Manning's detention was 'cruel and inhuman.' Manning wants the case against him to be dismissed because his pre-trial punishment was so severe. Manning's attorney, David Coombs, earlier released an 11-page letter detailing the conditions of Manning's confinement. Manning offered guilty pleas to minor charges, but not to spying, aiding American enemies or treason, and those pleas have been accepted by the judge."
He's lucky he is getting a case at all. Traitors should be subject to summary execution during wartime.
"Congress shall have power to ... declare War"
- http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
I don't recall seeing any Congressional declaration of war.
"The 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]
Punishment. In civilized places we don't punish people. We attempt to rehabilitate them, and to prevent them from continuing to commit acts against others. But we don't punish them. The fact that the conditions that Manning has been held in equate to punishment, when he hasn't even had a trial and been convicted, is a disgrace. There should be outrage from the international community (at least those places that claim the labels "liberal" and "democratic").
Personally I'm not even convinced he leaked all that stuff. What did he get out of it? But props to whomever did leak those cables. It was a great service to the world. Highlighting hypocrisy by the US government, and also some of the nastiness done by other nations with the tacit support, and knowledge, of the US government.
Also, the pleas have not "been accepted by the judge" according to the BBC.
Why would he offer to plead guilty if he, as I suggest, didn't even do the crime? Because the conditions are so awful. It's long been the case that innocents have been tortured and then confessed. (I've been reading the Arabian Nights, and someone confessed to thieving because they were being beaten so much, and then they had their hand cut off. But they didn't actually do the crime.) Manning is being tortured.
Even just preventing him from seeing properly (taking his glasses away) is mistreatment.
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
USA! USA! USA! USA! /trolling
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.
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.
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.
I am officially gone from
Helping. we are Helping the middle east.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
He is not a civilian. He is a sworn member of the military. Civilian laws only apply under very limited situations. He violated his oath. He committed espionage while on active duty. And while I agree that there has been a slow, dangerous process of reducing our civil liberties, this has nothing to do with the Manning case. It is a red herring that ignores the fact that Manning is a traitor who performed his crimes while a sworn, active member of the military. He is lucky that the military no longer pushes for capital punishment for these cases.
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.
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.
no comment
What if the mission is wrong?
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
..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,
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?
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?
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.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
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.
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!
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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.
Under the Military Code of Justice you are NOT innocent until proven guilty.
UCMJ Article 51(c) reads in part:
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
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.
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;
It also forbids unlawful command influence:
So everyone parroting "UCMJ! UCMJ!", I have a simple question for you. Do you want Bradley Manning immediately released, given the Commander-in-Chief's textbook case of unlawful command influence, or are you a hack engaging in situational ethics?
> 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.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
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.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
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.