Slashdot Mirror
Bradley Manning Pleads Guilty To 10 Charges
Entropy98 sends this quote from the LA Times:
"Army Pfc. Bradley Edward Manning pleaded guilty Thursday to 10 charges that he illegally acquired and transferred highly classified U.S. government secrets, agreeing to serve [up to] 20 years in prison for causing a worldwide uproar when WikiLeaks published documents describing the inner workings of U.S. military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the globe. The 25-year-old soldier, however, pleaded not guilty to 12 more serious charges, including espionage for aiding the enemy, meaning that his criminal case will go forward at a general court-martial in June. If convicted at trial, he risks a sentence of life in prison at Ft. Leavenworth, Kan."
"Lethargic"? Try "unconstitutional" or "illegal", per the Sixth Amendment:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial ..."
I am officially gone from
The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the military's right to maintain different standards of justice for its members than the civilian justice that the wording of the Constituion describes.
Could you please provide conclusive proof that the release of this information did in fact provide any meaningful aid to the enemy? Because even analysts who support the government's case against Manning have said there was little practical fallout from the leak.
The "different standards" in this case are UCMJ Article 10, which states:
"When any person subject to this chapter is placed in arrest or confinement prior to trial, immediate steps shall be taken to inform him of the specific wrong of which he is accused and to try him or to dismiss the charges and release him."
The military justice system actually has a more stringent speedy trial standard than civilian law.
I am officially gone from
It also has things like blacks being 3/5ths of a person
For the record, the Constitution says no such thing. It does (or did) state that, for voting and taxation purposes, slaves will (would) be counted as 3/5ths of a person, but at no point does the document specify the race of the slaves in question.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Constitution doesn't mention slaves. The 3/5th refers to "all other persons".
Slavery was a hot potato even back in 1787, so the Framers decided to avoid the topic altogether and ship a product rather than argue endlessly and come up with nothing. Many of the founding fathers were opposed to slavery, but the southern slaveholding states would've never ratified the Constitution if slavery was banned.
They excluded the word "slave" on purpose. If the clause had read "slaves shall be counted as 3/5th", that would've be an implicit legitimization of slavery. So they basically just kicked the can down the road and the issue didn't get addressed until 1860.
Are you snarking, trolling, or willfully ignorant?
U.S. officials were told to cover up evidence of child abuse by contractors in Afghanistan.
Guantanamo prison has held mostly innocent people and low-level operatives.
U.S. Military officials withheld information about the indiscriminate killing of Reuters journalists and innocent Iraqi civilians.
Known Egyptian torturers received training from the FBI in Quantico, Virginia.
The State Department authorized the theft of the UN Secretary General's DNA.
Is English not your first language? You do realise "to try him" means to bring him to trial. And that the "immediate steps" part also relates to that.
I'm a Technical Sergeant(E-6) in the USAF. I'm a 'non-commissioned officer', or NCO. I did not accept a commission, I enlisted. At a very vague level, commissioned officers are all approved/commissioned by congress(it's a massive list buried somewhere). My rank is not dependent upon that.
Article 133 is completely irrelevant to me. My boss, a 1st Lt. (O-2), can be court-martialed under that clause, I cannot be. Articles 92&134 are generally the catchall of choice for enlisted personnel.
I don't read AC A human right