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."
I would argue that he deserves a medal *and* jail time. Sometimes a citizen has a moral obligation to break a law, but to say the military should just overlook his law-breaking sounds an awful lot like "the end justifies the means." And that is the same argument the government is using to violate the Geneva convention and international law.
Double standards are despicable.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Actually, I was more referring to the recent stuff with the Obama administration trying to explain why the Second Amendment doesn't exist and why we shouldn't worry about it. I guess I got my quotes mixed up.
Plus there's the whole "free to assassinate Americans when they're outside the country" thing. Clearly judicial process isn't something the Obama administration is terribly worried about.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
By all means.
The UCMJ requires trials within 120 days. Manning past that years ago. The UCMJ also forbids unlawful command influence - which Obama committed when he publicly pronounced Manning guilty, since as CiC is the boss of the prosecution and the judge. Funny how the "but Manning broke the laaaaaaaw" types don't care about that.
Where "The Enemy" is US general population.
You are the one who needs to conclusively prove that he wasn't attempting to aid the enemy by releasing volumes of military secrets in time of war.
No. The burden of proof relies on you to conclusively prove that he was attempting to aid the enemy. Innocent until proven guilty... remember?
And its absurd on its face to argue that he was "attempting to aid the enemy", based on his actions. If he was attempting to aid the enemy he would have leaked them straight to the enemy. Its bloody obvious that by attempting to leak to news agencies, and then after that failed to a whistleblower site that he was attempting to alert the public what its own government was doing. "Attempting to aid the enemy" just isn't on the table.
Now you could try and argue that his actions incidentally aided the enemy... but then you run up against the conclusive analysis that it had no practical effect.
So that leaves you with... he wasn't trying to aid the enemy with the leaks, and he didn't incidentally aid them either.
So now your strategy is to make inapplicable analogies to worthless diamond thefts? Is that some sort of prosecution variation of the Chewbacca defense?
right... A lot of people here are curiously disgusted by supporters of Bradley Manning, but there wasn't a single prosecution of anyone responsible for the war crimes Manning exposed. What do these people say to that? Do they support the double-standard?
What war crimes?
Dick Cheney is by far the easiest to go after: Torture of prisoners, specifically waterboarding, which the US declared a crime against humanity when the Japanese did it to our soldiers. Evidence: He announced that he'd done so on national television.
George W Bush: Probably torture as well. Aggression (attacking a country without reason to believe that country is attempting to attack you), which we killed several Germans for doing at Nuremberg. Ordering the bombing of civilian targets in Iraq.
Barack Obama: Ordering "double-tap" drone strikes, where a strike occurs, and 15-20 minutes later a second strike occurs that kills anyone who tried to save the wounded from the first strike. Ordering drone strikes on funerals, which is specifically prohibited.
I am officially gone from
this is war.
Yes, which is why they're called war crimes.