I live right outside Ft. Meade and use the main entrance often. I wonder if they know its Federal grounds since its Post Hosing.
WASHINGTON: Bradley Manning, the US soldier alleged to have passed to WikiLeaks a trove of military and diplomatic documents, will have a first hearing before a military court next month, the Pentagon said Monday.
Manning, who has spent the past year-and-a-half in prison, is to appear before a December 16 tribunal in Fort Meade, Maryland, just outside Washington, DC, military officials said.
Army officials said Manning is to appear at an "Article 32 hearing," the first step in a court martial that could end up in a life sentence.
"The primary purpose of the Article 32 hearing is to evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of the government's case as well as to provide the defense with an opportunity to obtain pretrial discovery," a Pentagon statement said.
It added that the hearing, which is scheduled to take place the day before his 24th birthday, is "similar to a civilian grand jury, with additional rights afforded to the accused."
Manning allegedly gave gave thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks, which later published them online. He is charged with "aiding the enemy," a crime which carries a maximum penalty of life in prison.
Manning is the only suspect facing trial in the United States for the document dump -- a massive intelligence breach which led to an embarrassing daily drip of diplomatic revelations and military secrets in newspapers and websites around the world.
Manning, who was arrested in July 2010, served as a US intelligence official in Iraq. (AFP)
I'm not with chucklehead. I rather see chucklehead get at least 20 yrs, busting big rocks into little rocks, and no chance for parole. Annapolis Rd going to be painful going into post.
I wonder what took so long for the eharing? I believe I read that 120 days is what the Uniform Code of Military Justice considered a speedy trial. I believe Manning was "incarcerated" for much longer than that before this date was even set.
I wish they would execute him for this. I hope at the very least he gets a life sentence, without the possibility of parole. We need a fresh example.
Off topic, but...
I live right outside Ft. Meade and use the main entrance often. I wonder if they know its Federal grounds since its Post Hosing.
I know you've had OPSEC briefings before, and after your UAV spill, I would hope you'd be a bit more guarded about this kind of stuff. This post isn't as big a deal as the UAV one, but please try to be a little bit more cautious about posting information like this.
murdog wrote:Bradley Manning, if he did what he is alleged to have done, is an American Hero, imho.
Right, so indirectly causing the death of US many sympathizers across the Arab world, causing political doom for many diplomats and other dignitaries, and just creating general havoc across the globe is an "American Hero".
Personally I'd call him a traitor, and I LIKED wiki-leaks (at least before the douchebag used it as a political tool to attack the US for the sake of attacking the US).
General info given so I didn't violate OPSEC. You can find general information on what I said on the internet. Now if I start giving mission detail on current ops then I be violating OPSEC. I know I didn't give the SINGARS freq we operate on. CNN gave more info then what I already put out
Example on general info on US Supercarrier is 30+ knots according to Wiki. Besides Wiki has a nice section on Ft. Meade with a aerial pic of NSA on Meade.
Jihadin wrote:General info given so I didn't violate OPSEC. You can find general information on what I said on the internet. Now if I start giving mission detail on current ops then I be violating OPSEC. I know I didn't give the SINGARS freq we operate on. CNN gave more info then what I already put out
Example on general info on US Supercarrier is 30+ knots according to Wiki. Besides Wiki has a nice section on Ft. Meade with a aerial pic of NSA on Meade.
Knowing which gate you personally travel through, and the area around post you live in, is not General information.
Was there not a whistleblower during the 'nam war who dumped a lot of files into the public domain? I seem to recall he had a lot of support at the time.
Anybody can get that info by watching the gates and every body knows main gate is the only one open on the weekend besides the backgate of Meade. Thats more a SAEDA issue or Threat Awareness. I wear a uniform so we're all a target
OPSEC is
Detailed information about the mission of assigned units.
Details on locations and times of unit deployments.
Personnel transactions that occur in large numbers (Example: pay information, powers of attorney, wills, deployment information).
References to trends in unit morale or personnel problems.
Details concerning security procedures.
Jihadin wrote:Anybody can get that info by watching the gates and every body knows main gate is the only one open on the weekend besides the backgate of Meade. Thats more a SAEDA issue or Threat Awareness. I wear a uniform so we're all a target
OPSEC is
Detailed information about the mission of assigned units.
Details on locations and times of unit deployments.
Personnel transactions that occur in large numbers (Example: pay information, powers of attorney, wills, deployment information).
References to trends in unit morale or personnel problems.
Details concerning security procedures.
Just to clarify. Not arguing
Ok, just from flipping through the Off topic section Every now and then, I know this about you.
-You use the front gate at Ft Meade
-you live close to the Front gate, at Meade.
-Your Pictures
-That you are going to be discharged soon for disability reasons
-That you seem to know a fair bit about UAVs
-That you are an NCO
This is just from my cursory time in this section, Why on earth are you putting all this information out there? Do you see what I'm getting at here?
Not coming after me are you? I stand you up for coffee at Dunkin Donuts and share some boston creme filled donuts with you I'm not showing you where I live though nor go into detail on what I do. You try to sell me something then coffee on you. Besides if AustonT and Frazz and GAWD forbid...Mattrym wants to meet me (forgot Seattle soon) then no issue. I'm confident in myself for anyone that comes up to me and say "DakkaDakke" and I buy them coffee. No Kool Aid....coffee.
Jihadin wrote:Not coming after me are you? I stand you up for coffee at Dunkin Donuts and share some boston creme filled donuts with you I'm not showing you where I live though nor go into detail on what I do. You try to sell me something then coffee on you. Besides if AustonT and Frazz and GAWD forbid...Mattrym wants to meet me (forgot Seattle soon) then no issue. I'm confident in myself for anyone that comes up to me and say "DakkaDakke" and I buy them coffee. No Kool Aid....coffee.
Alright then. Coffee then.
Anyway, to get this back on topic. I wish they would execute him, to set an example. The Media loves executions.
Prosecution already forgo the death sentence on him to nail him on a life sentence. He did though off the bat Asked the judge to recuse himself since the investigator/judge himself works for DoJ when not activated for duty. I would have done the same thing to keep my appeals open
If his actions did no harm, but brought to light important and hidden information about misdeeds, then he should be treated as a Whistleblower. What needs to be established is whether his actions actually caused any harm.
UCMJ calls for trial within 120, right? So his rights have already been violated/he's already been mistreated. No?
murdog wrote:Bradley Manning, if he did what he is alleged to have done, is an American Hero, imho.
Right, so indirectly causing the death of US many sympathizers across the Arab world, causing political doom for many diplomats and other dignitaries, and just creating general havoc across the globe is an "American Hero".
Personally I'd call him a traitor, and I LIKED wiki-leaks (at least before the douchebag used it as a political tool to attack the US for the sake of attacking the US).
Ouze wrote:
murdog wrote:Bradley Manning, if he did what he is alleged to have done, is an American Hero, imho.
I'd like to hear some expansion on this thought. I myself don't think he did anything particularly heroic.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Was there not a whistleblower during the 'nam war who dumped a lot of files into the public domain? I seem to recall he had a lot of support at the time.
Indeed there was, Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers. He was interviewed by Democracy Now on Thursday, I'll use his words to respond to Mel and Ouze first:
First of all, on that video, which I’ve seen a number of times, let me speak as a former Marine company commander, and I was a battalion training officer who trained the 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marines on rules of war. No question in my mind, as I looked at that, that the specific leaked pictures in there of helicopter gunners hunting down and shooting an unarmed man in civilian clothes, clearly wounded, in an area where a squad of American soldiers was about to appear, as the helicopter gunners knew, to take custody of anyone remaining living, that shooting was murder. It was a war crime. Not all killing in war is murder, but a lot of it is. And this was.
The Time magazine cover gives protester, an anonymous protester, as "Person of the Year," but it is possible to put a face and a name to that picture of "Person of the Year." And the American face I would put on that is Private Bradley Manning. The fact is that he is credited by President Obama and the Justice Department, or the Army, actually, with having given WikiLeaks that helicopter picture and other evidence of atrocities and war crimes—and torture, specifically—in Iraq, including in the Obama administration. That, in other words, led to the Tunisian uprising, the occupation in Tunis Square, which has been renamed by—for another face that could go on that picture, Mohamed Bouazizi, who, after the WikiLeaks exposures of corruption, in Tunis, himself, Bouazizi, burned himself alive just one year ago tomorrow, Saturday, December 17th, in protest. And the combination of the WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning exposures in Tunis and the exemplification of that by Mohamed Bouazizi led to the protests, the nonviolent protests, that drove Ben Ali out of power, our ally there who we supported up 'til that moment, and in turn sparked the uprising in Egypt, in Tahrir Square occupation, which immediately stimulated the Occupy Wall Street and the other occupations in the Middle East and elsewhere. So, "Person of the Year," one of those persons of the year is now sitting in a courthouse in Leavenworth. He deserves the recognition that he's just gotten in Time. Julian Assange, who published that, another person of the year, I would say, who’s gotten a number of journalistic awards, very much deserve our gratitude. And I hope they will have the effect in liberating us from the lawlessness that we have seen and the corruption—the corruption—that we have seen in this country in the last 10 years and more, which has been no less than that of Tunis and Egypt.
On his pretrial punishment:
Well, it’s equivalent to a grand jury hearing. It’s kind of symptomatic of the present state of law in the United States, sort of like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland: punishment first, trial afterwards, sentence after that. He’s been effectively punished now ten-and-a-half months in Quantico in isolation, a kind of torture, according to the U.N. standards and to our own domestic law, that he couldn’t be sentenced to under our amendment to the Bill of Rights against cruel and unusual punishment. He couldn’t be assigned to that, but he has already. That, in itself, makes a travesty of this continued trial.
Exposing war crimes and government corruption are more important to me than 'causing political doom for many diplomats and other dignitaries'; to me war crimes and corruption create far more 'general havoc across the globe' than leaked documents; and I'll reserve judgment on the harm caused to US national security until Mannings defence has a chance to call witnesses to testify to that. WikiLeaks published the full unedited versions of the documents since Manning was arrested, please point me to reports on 'the death of many US sympathizers across the Arab world'.
Battling the full weight of the US government in order to expose serious crimes and corruption is heroic imo. I don't think one does that sort of thing 'just for the sake of attacking the US'.
Melissia wrote:And yet, he's still effectively murdered numerous people by proxy, and he has aided and abbeted known terrorists.
Please point me to the reports of numerous people murdered because of information released by WikiLeaks. Please point me to reports of terrorists aided and abbeted by the information released by WikiLeaks. Even a hypothetical analysis.
Seems to me that war crimes and corrupt regimes have done far more to create terrorists than information from wikileaks has helped them.
He passed on classified information about contacts, informants, and supporters in Afghanistan, the information was then released to the public, leaving them highly vulnerable to reprisal from terrorists.
Jihadin wrote:I live right outside Ft. Meade and use the main entrance often. I wonder if they know its Federal grounds since its Post Hosing.
I'm not with chucklehead. I rather see chucklehead get at least 20 yrs, busting big rocks into little rocks, and no chance for parole. Annapolis Rd going to be painful going into post.
I live right around there too!
Anyway, the guy deserves whatever he gets. There's no excuse for his behavior, and I think his sympathizers need to take a serious look at their morals. Granted, most of the intelligence was relatively harmless, but it's classified for a reason.
How anyone can call him a 'hero' is beyond my comprehension. He's done nothing good for anyone, and he's put a lot of american lives at risk (potentially). The guy's a traitor, plain and simple.
murdog wrote:
Exposing war crimes and government corruption are more important to me than 'causing political doom for many diplomats and other dignitaries'; to me war crimes and corruption create far more 'general havoc across the globe' than leaked documents; and I'll reserve judgment on the harm caused to US national security until Mannings defence has a chance to call witnesses to testify to that.
Arguably US national security is either less important than, or an a level playing field with, war crimes and corruption.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Samus_aran115 wrote:There's no excuse for his behavior, and I think his sympathizers need to take a serious look at their morals. Granted, most of the intelligence was relatively harmless, but it's classified for a reason.
Just a suggestion, but I wouldn't use the argument "Its classified for a reason."
Samus_aran115 wrote:
How anyone can call him a 'hero' is beyond my comprehension. He's done nothing good for anyone, and he's put a lot of american lives at risk (potentially). The guy's a traitor, plain and simple.
It never ceases to amaze me how readily Americans will adopt a collectivist mentality where the military, or national defense, is concerned.
And yet, he's still effectively murdered numerous people by proxy, and he has aided and abbeted known terrorists.
This is spot on.
But it needs to be established IF his treasonous act indeed caused the death to many american sources abroad.
Things lean towards this and if so then the traitor f****r should be hanged high.
Murdog, you just sound like shuma. To you it really doesnt matter if people will get exposed, cought, murdered and tortured painfully in ME cellars as long as your oh so moral high horses are upheld by a little whistle blowing.
Absolutely disgusting!
murdog wrote:Seems to me that war crimes and corrupt regimes have done far more to create terrorists than information from wikileaks has helped them.
Considering that the so-called "terrorists" in Iraq and Afghanistan are either political revolutionaries, petty warlords, or the local equivalent of street gangs, no, nothing we've done has really done much to promote their growth, aside from arming the Afghan warlords back in the eighties, when they were fighting the Soviets (one of the final acts of our successful, if costly, "screw up everything the Soviets are trying to do, no matter the cost" campaign). Moreover, the information leaked by Manning didn't actually contain evidence of any real wrongdoing, it only demonstrated that bad things occasionally happen in active warzones, and that the state department does exactly what it's supposed to be doing.
Samus_aran115 wrote:
I don't see why that's abnormal.
It isn't necessarily, I'm simply the least nationalistic person you're probable encounter, so it amazes me when other people exhibit nationalistic tendencies.
Especially when those same people (not you per se) will subsequently adopt a highly individualistic mentality when it comes to the loss of life, or property.
Mannahnin wrote:Can anyone in the anti-Manning camp give an example of anyone who's died as a result of his actions?
Maybe we could get a bunch of people together, legal experts and investigators, and hold some kind of gathering where they can present the things they have learned, either good or bad, to determine whether any of these accusations have any merit instead of getting a bunch of people not as informed or as involved to decide beforehand we should do that. Crazy idea, but it might work.
Mannahnin wrote:Can anyone speak to the incident with the helicopter gunship and Ellsberg's comments about it being a war crime?
I only know what I saw on the internets, but I certainly didn't see evidence of a war crime. Mistakes, friendly fire, and collateral damage are all going to be an expected and natural part of any armed conflict, as they have been for every other conflict in history. So far as I know, that was the only real major leak that Manning released. If I'm wrong, please correct me. I do think that exposing war crimes that have been covered up would be a heroic thing, I just don't think that's what actually happened here.
I will say, that while I don't feel a lot of sympathy for Bradley Manning, I feel awful about the fact that he's on trial, and guys like John Yoo are walking around free and clear, not a care in the world.
Watched the whole thing. Don't really know what to say. They zoomed in on the children, but I don't they that would have been discernible from a moving helicopter while the focus was clearly on the men picking up bodies.
All I can say is that I'm glad we're finally out of there.
Go ahead and sit in that gunship and have fun distinguishing a camera from a weapon at that range.
To be honest I cant believe the way people talk about this. Yes, its a tragedy. No, its most certainly not a war crime. Had the gunner been mowing down civilians and laughing while he shot at the dead bodies, we would have a problem right there. But theres a difference between that, and civilians being caught in the line of fire because they look hostile, and you think theyre going to kill you.
Go ahead and sit in that gunship and have fun distinguishing a camera from a weapon at that range.
To be honest I cant believe the way people talk about this. Yes, its a War Crime No, its most certainly not a Tragedy. Had the gunner been mowing down civilians and laughing while he shot at the dead bodies, we would have a problem right there. But theres a difference between that, and civilians being caught in the line of fire because they look hostile, and you think theyre going to kill you.
Fixed that for you.
The group of people was certainly acting... odd. I wouldn't have imagined it was a camera crew if I was up in the helo eyeballing them. Then the truck showed up, and again, if I was in the crew's position, I could easily see that as a threat.
I think it's right that videos like that can be seen. People need to have an understanding of what war is.
As to whether it was a war crime or not, I don't know. It was pretty harrowing viewing though.
Edit: I will say that correctly identifying threats is a major part of a soldier's job though, and those guys messed up and don't need excuses made for them.
Bradley Manning should be tried as a traitor. Let a jury decide his fate.
As a helicopter pilot myself, I can absolutely tell you that a man holding a camera can look ALOT like a man holding a gun. In a volatile region of Iraq, I can certainly see why they would think "gun" instead of "camera." Everyone here playing armchair general can take a step back and think about what YOU would do when the lives of your crew and your buddies in on the line as opposed to a guy you think has a gun.
Bradley Manning released tons of classified information that clearly wasn't about exposing a war crime. Showing one video as evidence of his righteousness still doesn't excuse him from 10,000 acts of violating orders, exposing government secrets, endangering the lives (if not costing the lives) of allies and US service members, and aiding and abetting the enemy.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Bradley Manning released tons of classified information that clearly wasn't about exposing a war crime. Showing one video as evidence of his righteousness still doesn't excuse him from 10,000 acts of violating orders, exposing government secrets, endangering the lives (if not costing the lives) of allies and US service members, and aiding and abetting the enemy.
From what I understand of wikileaks, and by extension Manning, it was more a case of exposing how much crap the government classifies in what might be considered an unwarranted manner than about war crimes.
Pyriel- wrote:Murdog, you just sound like shuma. To you it really doesnt matter if people will get exposed, cought, murdered and tortured painfully in ME cellars as long as your oh so moral high horses are upheld by a little whistle blowing.
Absolutely disgusting!
You misunderstand me. Of course it matters to me 'if people will get exposed, caught, murdered and tortured painfully in ME cellars'. That has not been shown to be the case with leaked information from WikiLeaks. However, it has been shown to be the case, with help from WikiLeaks, that the US government has supported the regimes that do exactly that, indeed the CIA's rendition program is widely known to have sent innocent people to those places, without charges or trials. You seem to think its more important to punish a person who MAY have endangered some people than to hold to account those that actually HAVE endangered people. Maybe my seeing it the other way around disgusts you, so be it.
I wouldn't call the release of 250 000 documents, exposing corruption and warcrimes, 'a little whistle blowing', more like the biggest whistleblowing case in US history.
Interesting how people can't use their credit cards to donate to WikiLeaks yet they can donate to well known and I'm sure some lesser known domestic subversive groups and terrorist organizations within the US. Something is definitely "messed up" with the system.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Considering that the so-called "terrorists" in Iraq and Afghanistan are either political revolutionaries, petty warlords, or the local equivalent of street gangs, no, nothing we've done has really done much to promote their growth, aside from arming the Afghan warlords back in the eighties, when they were fighting the Soviets .
Well, and arming the Iraqis (and the Iranians) during their war with Iran.
Then there's the whole "destroy the public works infrastructure in large Iraqi cities" part of the invasion of Iraq.
And the assumption of the previous Administration, during the early days of the war, that taking large population centers would eliminate resistance (instead of simply forcing it to other parts of the country).
Oh, and creating large no-fly zones which limited Saddam's ability to exert control over ~2/3 of Iraqi territory, producing relatively strong opposition factions.
Sasori wrote:
I know you've had OPSEC briefings before, and after your UAV spill, I would hope you'd be a bit more guarded about this kind of stuff. This post isn't as big a deal as the UAV one, but please try to be a little bit more cautious about posting information like this.
As I remember the only thing he said was that UAVs were controlled by SINGARS, easily corrected using open source information. So he didn't "spill" anything and IIRC redacted the incorrect statement. Or are we referring to some other thread.
Not to mention the killings of innocent civilians (including whole wedding parties at a time), the waterboarding of prisoners, the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo - I guess none of that has anything to do with the recruitment potential for terrorists and insurgents.
3000+ killed by drones around the world, including 175 children - no, nothing to do with growing resistance to US policies.
Support for repressive regimes - nothing to do with it.
murdog wrote:
3000+ killed by drones around the world, including 175 children - no, nothing to do with growing resistance to US policies.
Truthfully, that's a very small number. But then, the number of civilians killed on 9/11 was similar, and when bin Laden was killed there was dancing in the street.
If nothing else it points to the human tendency to object to the death of humans they believe themselves to be affiliated with, even if any possible affiliation is only tenuous.
Oh, and the inability to attribute that characteristic to people with whom they are not affiliated.
I'm totally putting words in your mouth, epic words.
Although the profoundness of a Canadain declaring a traitor to the United States an American hero is so deep.
Just because the documents he released weren't/aren't critical doesn't mean he was the person to decide to release them. Not his call to make, ignoring completely his obligations as a soldier, his read on to any secure information made him a criminal regardless. I don't feel bad for him.
My only interest in this particular tale is the degree to which it illustrates two things:
1) The degree to which the military leverages its political position in order to protect its own, much as police do.
2) Classification creep, or the increasing tendency of the state to classify things that it deems unfavorable with respect to the populace. This isn't necessarily bad, but we live in an era of easy publishing, and decreasing nationalism, so it is perhaps naive.
Lets talk about my being a Canadian commenting this way, then, since its been brought up.
First of all, I wouldn't trust those little flags anyways - I've heard of Blackberrys showing up Canadian, and there are many Americans working and going to school in Canada, and vice-versa. Who's to say there aren't canucks hiding behind some of those yankee flags? And why does the flag matter anyways?
In any case, I am a Canadian. Of course I've been bombarded with American culture since birth - my first words were lyrics to Niel Diamond. I've watched your TV shows and movies, listened to your music, and read your books. I've had the opportunity to travel extensively in the US. My mother married an American. My brother is a scientist at an American university. I've studied the US at university.
My interests and connections in the US are both personal and academic. But it goes further than that. As a Canadian, my long-term security, and more importantly that of my children, is very much tied to what happens south of the border. The US is Canada's chief ally and biggest trading partner. What the US government does affects my life. I care about what happens there.
So when I call Manning an American Hero, I'm not doing so flippantly. I truly believe that showing the world that information was the right thing to do, and that it has brought far more good than bad. Maybe he technically is a traitor to the US government, but in my view he is not a traitor to the american people, or the people of the world.
And if he doesn't have a square jaw and bulging muscles, he at least had the balls to do what he thought was right, in the face of overwhelming power. He's taken what they've dished out and still walks around with his chin up. I've seen no evidence that he was in the pay of a foreign power, or that he seeks fame (or infamy). Doesn't the American Hero fight for right, selflessly, and against all odds?
That man needs life in Prison in the worse hellhole possible at the bare minimum.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
murdog wrote:Not to mention the killings of innocent civilians (including whole wedding parties at a time), the waterboarding of prisoners, the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo - I guess none of that has anything to do with the recruitment potential for terrorists and insurgents.
3000+ killed by drones around the world, including 175 children - no, nothing to do with growing resistance to US policies.
Support for repressive regimes - nothing to do with it.
Why do they hate us?
Do you support the theory of Obama Deception as well?
murdog wrote:Maybe he technically is a traitor to the US government, but in my view he is not a traitor to the american people, or the people of the world.
I believe there's a precedent of some sort for this.
You are as all of us are, entitled to your own opinion. I would stray in the future from describing how Canadian you are whilst telling me that a man who gives up my State's secrets is a national hero. I'm sure someone in Russia (I wouldnt bet on it) thinks Robert Hanssen is an American Hero.
If you think he's brave and courageous and you honor him for his nobility, he can be your hero. I won't try to dissuade you. You can pattern your life after him, join the Canadian Army, steal and release classified documents, go wild. I'll be honest though:I probably wont consider you a Canadian hero. And I watched Due South, I'm and expert!
AustonT wrote:If you think he's brave and courageous and you honor him for his nobility, he can be your hero. I won't try to dissuade you. You can pattern your life after him, join the Canadian Army, steal and release classified documents, go wild. I'll be honest though:I probably wont consider you a Canadian hero. And I watched Due South, I'm and expert!
If he releases documents showing corruption/cover ups/etc, etc, then I would consider him, well, probably not a hero, but certainly someone doing something right. After all, all it takes for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing. I say this as an Englishman who does not even like tea!
Oh, wait, my nationality makes no difference as to whether I can comment on what I perceive to be right and wrong!
AustonT wrote:When treason is involved nationality becomes such an important issue.
Not appreciably, no. If someone from the US were to take a shot at the US el-presidente, that would be as much "treason" as if someone from the UK stuffed a corgie full of explosives and tried to blow up the Queen and I could be a Frenchman and still think the two crimes are the same, that both are treasonous. If someone tried to kill some horrible dictator ruling over their country, that would be treason too, though possibly "morally correct" from our point of view. My nationality has no bearing on my ability to think of something as treasonous.
Some guy releasing embarrassing (for the nation) information that they would rather keep quiet about; illegal detentions, sending people off on lovely torture holidays (you know, things that are illegal and if done in the open would rightly bring down scorn and condemnation from the rest of the world; especially since the USA holds itself up as some kind of beacon, the shining light of the free world), etc, should be heralded by the people of whatever country it happens to as a wake up call as to how the politicians/government/etc are abusing their positions and that the people need to get wise to what is happening and demand change.
I can't say I have gone through all the stuff that was released, but as has been mentioned a few times when people have asked what damage this information release has done in terms of lives lost etc; any proof of this? Or is the outrage over loss of face blinding you to the fact that no real actual harm was done, and the actual issues that have been raised with how certain elements of your nation are behaving?
Going to comment on the video. By releasing that video the investigation against the pilots is pretty much shot to pieces. There's a reason its secured.
I'm in the anti-manning camp simply because I think its a dishonourable thing to do. If I take the Queens shilling then I'm her man. I like to think that I would rather die on the losing side than switch teams if things are going ill or if a foreign power offered me money or something, and I just feel the same applies here.
If you become an intelligence analyst and get clearance to access top secret documents, you have signed the official secrets act and been interviewed several times to ascertain your infallibility in this matter, and I know because I was cleared to Top Secret (The process is known as DV in the UK, I believe it stands for Developed Vetting). Some bloke interviewed me twice, and he also turned up at two of my friends houses back home and asked questions about me. The reason they do this exhaustive background check is to ascertain whether or not you may be an intelligence risk, for example if you display a gambling habit or you are in heavy debt, you are likely to be refused clearance as they believe you are more susceptible to bribery or foreign influence.
Anyway, I think that if you have signed on the dotted line and agreed your service then you have gave your word that your going to play ball. If you feel that the government or military is morally reprehensible then the honourable thing to do is to put your notice in and leave your post, not blab everything to the press. I simply feel it was an extremely ignoble thing to.
I don't feel that strongly about it, I don't think that the lad wants the electric chair or 30 years inside or anything, but he warrants punishment because thems the rules. You can argue that he was extremely brave for doing what he did when he was aware of the consequences, but I definitely feel selling your honour so cheaply impacts negatively on your character, not positively.
Jihadin wrote:Going to comment on the video. By releasing that video the investigation against the pilots is pretty much shot to pieces. There's a reason its secured.
Matty, if you're a young guy, and you go in with the belief that your government is essentially honest and mostly doing the right thing, then find out in the course of your work (as an Intelligence Analyst) that some pretty heinous and dishonorable things are happening and being swept under the rug, where does your duty lie?
He didn't swear an oath to "play ball". He swore an oath to obey lawful orders, and one to protect and defend the Constitution. If some of his orders were to conceal what he believed to be criminal acts, those orders are not lawful, nor are they in keeping with the principles of our nation and Constitution.
While his acts were a violation of the trust given him, him being asked to conceal some of the things he was asked to help conceal may legitimately have been a betrayal of the trust the American people put in our military.
While people can hold any opinion they like, absent any specific evidence that anyone was actually endangered by the revealed documents, I think it's a bit early to be calling him a traitor and saying he should be hanged. I think the article murdog quoted goes a bit overboard in crediting Manning in some of the positive events that have followed, but I don't think it's outside consideration that there have been beneficial outcomes.
I'm certainly interested to see the arguments made and the evidence presented in the trial, both in regards to the damage actually done and any criminal acts revealed by Manning.
He didn't swear an oath to "play ball". He swore an oath to obey lawful orders, and one to protect and defend the Constitution. If some of his orders were to conceal what he believed to be criminal acts, those orders are not lawful, nor are they in keeping with the principles of our nation and Constitution.
Mannahnin wrote:Matty, if you're a young guy, and you go in with the belief that your government is essentially honest and mostly doing the right thing, then find out in the course of your work (as an Intelligence Analyst) that some pretty heinous and dishonorable things are happening and being swept under the rug, where does your duty lie?
He didn't swear an oath to "play ball". He swore an oath to obey lawful orders, and one to protect and defend the Constitution. If some of his orders were to conceal what he believed to be criminal acts, those orders are not lawful, nor are they in keeping with the principles of our nation and Constitution.
While his acts were a violation of the trust given him, him being asked to conceal some of the things he was asked to help conceal may legitimately have been a betrayal of the trust the American people put in our military.
While people can hold any opinion they like, absent any specific evidence that anyone was actually endangered by the revealed documents, I think it's a bit early to be calling him a traitor and saying he should be hanged. I think the article murdog quoted goes a bit overboard in crediting Manning in some of the positive events that have followed, but I don't think it's outside consideration that there have been beneficial outcomes.
I'm certainly interested to see the arguments made and the evidence presented in the trial, both in regards to the damage actually done and any criminal acts revealed by Manning.
Yeah I specifically said I dont think the bloke wants hanging, I just said he took the piss a bit.
I can see your point, and I can see both sides of the story, as I said, I just feel that what he did was dishonourable. I think that if he was uncomfortable with his job he should have let his post and quit the job, not leak everything. That's not your call to make as an intelligence analyst, and when your aware that there may be global ramifications to what you are about to do, you should quit for your own peace of mind if you have an issue, not blab everything you know and hang the consequences.
I can see both sides of the argument, that's just my two cents on the matter, and I certainly wouldn't make the same decisions as he did.
Jihadin wrote:two weeks afer the incident happen. They were cleared after 8 months. Sgt Scruffy cleared hat up
Then the pilots had already been cleared, so the only effect of the release of the video was to bring the incident to the attention of the outside world.
Yes but at that time Manning didn't know that. He's MI and the investigation was done by the AVN Bn and up.
Hard to explain Kil on releasing info in the military
best one for an exampe is the Ft Lewis crash recently involving two Kiowa Warriors. Reason for that accident will not be release till all avenues of the investigation is exhausted to reach a conclusion. IMHO on that crash it seems both aircraft main rotor blades struck each other on a turn.
Kilkrazy wrote:In that case perhaps Manning genuinely thought he had uncovered evidence of murders by soldiers, which were being covered up and ignored by the army.
Bear with me, I'm playing Devil's Advocate.
In the end, it doesn't matter why he did it. When you join the American Military, you play by a different set of rules. What he did was Illegal, period.
Kilkrazy wrote:In that case perhaps Manning genuinely thought he had uncovered evidence of murders by soldiers, which were being covered up and ignored by the army.
Bear with me, I'm playing Devil's Advocate.
In the end, it doesn't matter why he did it. When you join the American Military, you play by a different set of rules. What he did was Illegal, period.
Makes the tag under your name more understandable.
Kilkrazy wrote:In that case perhaps Manning genuinely thought he had uncovered evidence of murders by soldiers, which were being covered up and ignored by the army.
Bear with me, I'm playing Devil's Advocate.
In the end, it doesn't matter why he did it. When you join the American Military, you play by a different set of rules. What he did was Illegal, period.
You play by the rules of the military oath, which enjoin you to protect the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic.
In some circumstances that would empower you to ignore some rules in pursuit of a higher justice.
Kilkrazy wrote:In that case perhaps Manning genuinely thought he had uncovered evidence of murders by soldiers, which were being covered up and ignored by the army.
Bear with me, I'm playing Devil's Advocate.
In the end, it doesn't matter why he did it. When you join the American Military, you play by a different set of rules. What he did was Illegal, period.
You play by the rules of the military oath, which enjoin you to protect the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic.
In some circumstances that would empower you to ignore some rules in pursuit of a higher justice.
It never empowers you to leak classified information, under any circumstance.
Mannahnin wrote:Can anyone in the anti-Manning camp give an example of anyone who's died as a result of his actions?
Perhaps if I lived in Afghanistan I could get more specific news. But then again, I probably wouldn't be living in Afghanistan very much longer if I was living in Afghanistan.
You always stay within your chain of command though. You never go outside your chain. If there were issues with the documents he was "processing" then it should have gone up the chain or "leaked" to JAG. I'm leaning towards to "he did it out of spite" for some issues within his unit and felt justified with some "barracks lawyer" rationilization. Whats working against him is his counseling packet, CAC card, and UCMJ.
edit
So far there's no evidence of deaths/casualties relating to his "leak". There's a lag period till the insurgents/taliban/al queda starts connecting the dots. They don't keep a written roster on their manpower. Also a lot of them have same names or similiar. Nor do they keep a battle log. I'm leaning towards lack of brain power and piss poor admin on their side preventing reprisals. As for say the "villagers" well they're family oriented so getting "evidence" from other villagers on a individual is iffy. What they have been known to do is execute individuals having dialoge with Coalition Forces but not often. Last one I think was a 12 year old for getting candy from US troops.
Clearly there may be circumstances in which it is necessary not only to go outside one's proper chain of command but also to leak classified info in order to reveal an illegal cover-up (in fact it would often be essential to reveal classified materials).
Whether that is the case this time is why we have courts and legal processes to make a determination.
Weren't Washington/Adams/Jefferson et al traitors as well?
A lot of people on this site seem to be suggesting that a soldier follows orders regardless of the moral implications. If you take this to it's logical conclusion, you arrive in Nuremberg 1945.
purplefood wrote:If he has done what he has been accused of he deserves every punishment they can throw at him...
He lifted the veil of secrecy that the government has bogusly put over itself.... therefore he must be punished. Also, he made the US look bad.... so he should be punished. That's why people are so angry. I'm sure you will here a lot about how he endangered sources, but there is no evidence to back it up.
Funny, when Valerie Plame was outted, what happened? I guess it all depends on who does the leaking.
Kilkrazy wrote:In that case perhaps Manning genuinely thought he had uncovered evidence of murders by soldiers, which were being covered up and ignored by the army.
Bear with me, I'm playing Devil's Advocate.
That's why privates don't make decisions on declassifying documents. If he REALLY thought he had uncovered legitimate concerns he should have contacted the Inspector General at his lowest level which is the ACCEPTABLE means to go outside of your chain of command. Failing traction at IG, he could have contacted his congressmen,and the secretary of defense.
dogma wrote:
AustonT wrote:
When treason is involved nationality becomes such an important issue.
Francisco Martin Duran was not tried with treason, and he intended to fire lethal weapons on the President. Why should Manning be?
Charles J. Guiteau wasn't charged with treason either and he succeeded. While assassination fits the bill for treason IIRC it has not been applied to an assassin in the US. As a matter of fact few people are tried for treason, that doesn't absolve them of being labeled traitors any more than a plea bargain for 3rd degree sexual assault makes the offender any less a rapist (let's just assume and not ignite a new rape definition debate).
Treason is quite simply violating your allegiance to your nation. We can disagree on weather or not this kid is a traitor, but weather or not nationality effects treason seems fairly clear. I as an American can not be Treasonous in Ghana I hold no allegiance to them.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Weren't Washington/Adams/Jefferson et al traitors as well?
I suppose if you remove context and understanding from all situations they can all appear to be the same, sure.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:A lot of people on this site seem to be suggesting that a soldier follows orders regardless of the moral implications. If you take this to it's logical conclusion, you arrive in Nuremberg 1945.
It took longer than expected for Nazi's to be referenced, however obliquely.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Weren't Washington/Adams/Jefferson et al traitors as well?
A lot of people on this site seem to be suggesting that a soldier follows orders regardless of the moral implications. If you take this to it's logical conclusion, you arrive in Nuremberg 1945.
Godwin's law finally brings us to the logical conclusion of the Internet: Nazis
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I think the internet also needs a Samuel Johnson law along the lines of 'patriots will turn a blind eye to anything done in their name.'
Why not, there's already an internet law that says "blame America, you can come up with a reason why later".
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Weren't Washington/Adams/Jefferson et al traitors as well?
I suppose if you remove context and understanding from all situations they can all appear to be the same, sure.
Well, those men where demonstrably traitors to the British Empire and the Crown. That's not even a matter for debate. They would likely have faced the gallows, that is, if they hadn't had such terrific levels of success, in terms of their revolutionary goals. Which they did.
That's not even remotely the same thing as what Manning did, mind. I'm ambivalent about that, incidentally. If I was American, I'd probably be annoyed, as what he did caused considerable embarrassment to the USA. However, uncovering evidence of torture, illegal kidnapping and other legally questionable dealings should never be considered treasonous, just as a general pont of consideration.
Kilkrazy wrote:In that case perhaps Manning genuinely thought he had uncovered evidence of murders by soldiers, which were being covered up and ignored by the army.
Bear with me, I'm playing Devil's Advocate.
That's why privates don't make decisions on declassifying documents. If he REALLY thought he had uncovered legitimate concerns he should have contacted the Inspector General at his lowest level which is the ACCEPTABLE means to go outside of your chain of command. Failing traction at IG, he could have contacted his congressmen,and the secretary of defense.
This, so very much this. If he really thought a crime had been committed, his first duty would have been to report it up the chain. I'm not saying it's never wrong to leak information to the press, I just think it's the very absolutely last avenue, since you're not really qualified to interpret what you saw. I think his duty to his country meant following the chain of command unless he had some evidence the chain was corrupt.
I still do not see what was illegal about the gunship video. It was an accident; and intent was clearly not present. Intent is a major component of illegality. They clearly believed from the video that they were engaging legitimate military targets with approval from their superiors. It was a mistake: a sad, tragic mistake that will be repeated every time any military goes to war. It's a cost of the process.
Easy E wrote:I'm sure you will here a lot about how he endangered sources, but there is no evidence to back it up.
Just like there isn't "evidence" of the massacres in Darfur.
Um... okay.... can you name a third party watch dog group that has uncovered anything? I don't expect the governments of Afghanistan or any of the other countries where contacts were found to say, yup; that person is dead now. However, I do expect third party groups like NGO's or Journalists to find something. Perhaps I simply haven't heard about it; and I would like to see it. Unlike some posters on Dakka I would like to be informed if I am wrong.
Some, would consider him a hero as the information leaked fed the growing unrest in the arab world that led to the events of the Arab Spring, and the end of some dictators. The end of dictators was lionized in Iraq and Libya.
If he's a traitor, it is a very low-level offense. We aren't talking about the sale of nuclear weapon plans to the chinese or Soviets. They were mostly low-level diplomatic cables and common knowledge (at least fo the people in the immediate area) field reports from front line combat commanders leaked and used by jouranlists.
The real "crime" he commited was making the US look bad and letting the public get a window into what the US government/military was really doing. That CAN NOT be tolerated.
Kilkrazy wrote:The point of whistle-blowing is that you have to go outside your organisation because it is corrupt and you can't trust it to deal with the situation.
Yes, but tossing out random information isn't whistleblowing.
Imagine if an employee of coca cola said "this gak sucks and the corporate executives don't care as long as they make money" so they tossed out a crapton of financial information and the recipe for making coca cola to the public for all to see.
Thanks, but the subscription block isn't letting me read the full text. Plus, it seems to be in the opinion section, but again I could be wrong. I can't read the full text.
In 1988, the Military Whistleblower Protection Act of 1988 was passed by the United States Congress to protect military members who make lawful disclosures of wrongdoing to Members of Congress or an Inspector General. It required the Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense to investigate allegations of whistleblower reprisal. The statute was broadened in 1991 to protect disclosures to auditors, criminal investigators, inspectors and other Department of Defense law enforcement officers. In 1998, the Congress amended the statute to permit lesser Inspectors General to receive allegations and conduct investigations and retained oversight in the Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense.[9]
Kilkrazy wrote:The point of whistle-blowing is that you have to go outside your organisation because it is corrupt and you can't trust it to deal with the situation.
Yes, but tossing out random information isn't whistleblowing.
Imagine if an employee of coca cola said "this gak sucks and the corporate executives don't care as long as they make money" so they tossed out a crapton of financial information and the recipe for making coca cola to the public for all to see.
That's why there is a court, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:
In 1988, the Military Whistleblower Protection Act of 1988 was passed by the United States Congress to protect military members who make lawful disclosures of wrongdoing to Members of Congress or an Inspector General. It required the Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense to investigate allegations of whistleblower reprisal. The statute was broadened in 1991 to protect disclosures to auditors, criminal investigators, inspectors and other Department of Defense law enforcement officers. In 1998, the Congress amended the statute to permit lesser Inspectors General to receive allegations and conduct investigations and retained oversight in the Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense.[9]
That assumes you would trust the government.
Everyone knows that whistleblowers always get nailed.
Its why he's getting hammered that he went outside the chain of command. Congressional Investigations are not to trifle with in the military. No one interferes with the investigation. This is not someone off the street whistle blowing on a private enteprise. This is a soldier who fall under another set of law thats clearly written and adhered to. His performance packet is going to be his downfall. I'm sure one of his counseling forms is a block where he and his NCO go over the sensitive nature of thematerial he is handling. (Also have to keep in my mind your playing devil advocate Kil). Also a copy of the Non Disclosure form he signed. He's being tried for what he done within the articles of UCMJ not for what he had done
edit
Ugh the articles he broke doing what he did. Give me time to clarify. Its hard o explain about UCMJ unless you lived within it
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Weren't Washington/Adams/Jefferson et al traitors as well?
I suppose if you remove context and understanding from all situations they can all appear to be the same, sure.
Well, those men where demonstrably traitors to the British Empire and the Crown. That's not even a matter for debate. They would likely have faced the gallows, that is, if they hadn't had such terrific levels of success, in terms of their revolutionary goals. Which they did.
That's not even remotely the same thing as what Manning did, mind. I'm ambivalent about that, incidentally. If I was American, I'd probably be annoyed, as what he did caused considerable embarrassment to the USA. However, uncovering evidence of torture, illegal kidnapping and other legally questionable dealings should never be considered treasonous, just as a general pont of consideration.
Not debating whether Washington et al. were considered traitors, just pointing out what you also did: they are at best superficially similar and that if you look at the circumstances they are not related beyond using the term 'traitor'.
Jihadin wrote:Its why he's getting hammered that he went outside the chain of command. Congressional Investigations are not to trifle with in the military. No one interferes with the investigation. This is not someone off the street whistle blowing on a private enteprise. This is a soldier who fall under another set of law thats clearly written and adhered to. His performance packet is going to be his downfall. I'm sure one of his counseling forms is a block where he and his NCO go over the sensitive nature of thematerial he is handling. (Also have to keep in my mind your playing devil advocate Kil). Also a copy of the Non Disclosure form he signed. He's being tried for what he done within the articles of UCMJ not for what he had done
edit
Ugh the articles he broke doing what he did. Give me time to clarify. Its hard o explain about UCMJ unless you lived within it
There is going to be more than just a counseling packet. There are a lot of strict regulations when governing classified material, and lots of paperwork to go with that.
Which is why we have come around full circle again. What he did was illegal, and he will be convicted. There is no question about that.
Also, Kilkrazy, the IG and other organizations as AustonT pointed out, are far out of the Chain of Command.
Chain of command! We al know that if Manning had followed procedure, his complaints would have been dropped in a filing cabinet marked do not open for a hundred years.
I understand that people are annoyed about constant attacks on the USA - nothing wrong with that.
On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with breaking laws/rules etc to highlight immoral actions.
As I've said, technically, the founding fathers were lawbreakers, and of course, the civil rights marchers were also lawbreakers. Their actions must be measured in a moral context. Therefore, Manning, IMO, did the right thing.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Chain of command! We al know that if Manning had followed procedure, his complaints would have been dropped in a filing cabinet marked do not open for a hundred years.
Do we know that? Is it an absolute certainty? Everyone in the military a mustache twirling villain or just US military members?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:As I've said, technically, the founding fathers were lawbreakers, and of course, the civil rights marchers were also lawbreakers. Their actions must be measured in a moral context. Therefore, Manning, IMO, did the right thing.
Again, you are comparing to things that are not alike, except in the broadest sense. Washington, King, and Manning? I mean really?
Kilkrazy wrote:He's being prosecuted for incorrect reporting procedures not for treason.
Not really, he ignored reporting procedures and his obligations to his country and his fellow soldiers dumping data he had no idea would or would not endanger other soldiers onto the Internet. He betrayed his allegiance to the state, that is treason. Just because he won't face that charge doesn't make it any less applicable.
@Auston, he's not Benedict Arnold
@Ahtman, the British government has been shamefully covering up illegal action in Northern Ireland for a long time. It took 30 years for the truth about Bloody Sunday to be revealed. It's not just an American Military thing.
People talk about traitors, but Jefferson and Lee were traitors to the Union, but these guys have high schools named after them...
A former hacker and convicted felon explains why he turned Manning into authorities:
Adrian Lamo, Bradley Manning Informant, Defends Role in Turning in Alleged WikiLeaks Whistleblower
We speak with Adrian Lamo, the former hacker who last year informed the U.S. military authorities of his conversations with Army Private Bradley Manning, in which Manning claimed to have leaked a large body of classified documents. In internet chats with Lamo using a pseudonym, Manning allegedly disclosed he was providing materials to WikiLeaks founder and editor-in-chief Julian Assange. Lamo is now a witness in Manning’s trial. "I very much regret the situation that his actions have put him in. He is on my mind every day. I remember what it was to be that young and that idealistic. And when he came to me, he created a situation where there was no right decision. There were simply choices that were between greater and lesser harm. I had to go with the one that resulted in the lesser harm, but still resulted in harm," says Lamo. "The leaks have real potential to do harm or hazard. And then, additionally, they still do long-term damage to U.S. diplomacy with other countries, which in turn weakens our international position."
His peers would e drawn from lower enlisted with some NCO's.
As I've said, technically, the founding fathers were lawbreakers, and of course, the civil rights marchers were also lawbreakers. Their actions must be measured in a moral context. Therefore, Manning, IMO, did the right thing.
Founding Fathers has nothing to do with UCMJ. Of course at that time if Manning did a intell dump for the british to see they would have shot him within like 3 days at most after discovery. Whats happening to Manning now is something thats not fimiliar to everyone. His moral context has no issue in the proceeding.
"I, _____, 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." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Its called a panel in a court martial. From the Manual for Courts Martial it says:
In cases where the accused is an enlisted member, the accused may request that enlisted service members be appointed to the panel.
There is no jury of peers. Just like we don't let privates make strategic decisions, we don't generally let them decide the guilt or innocence of other privates. One would hope that any NCO worth his/her salt sees the situation beyond it's face and STARTS on the side of the accused and forces the prosecution to leverage them away.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:People talk about traitors, but Jefferson and Lee were traitors to the Union, but these guys have high schools named after them...
Again, you seem to be equating two different actions as if they are the same. Julius Rosenberg was also a traitor but there are no streets named after him and he was executed, so are you saying we should execute Manning since essentially anyone with the label is the same? Or perhaps each should situation should be considered on its own merits instead of creating tenuous links that are thin at best.
Its a gut check for any NCO's on the panel. Protect the soldier as much as you can. Hence its easier on the panel to vote life imprisonment then to the death penalty.
AustonT wrote:Its called a panel in a court martial. From the Manual for Courts Martial it says:
In cases where the accused is an enlisted member, the accused may request that enlisted service members be appointed to the panel.
There is no jury of peers. Just like we don't let privates make strategic decisions, we don't generally let them decide the guilt or innocence of other privates. One would hope that any NCO worth his/her salt sees the situation beyond it's face and STARTS on the side of the accused and forces the prosecution to leverage them away.
Thank you. I used quotes around the Peers part, because I remembered it being different. The Panel part clears this up.
BrassScorpion wrote:A former hacker and convicted felon explains why he turned Manning into authorities:
Adrian Lamo, Bradley Manning Informant, Defends Role in Turning in Alleged WikiLeaks Whistleblower
We speak with Adrian Lamo, the former hacker who last year informed the U.S. military authorities of his conversations with Army Private Bradley Manning, in which Manning claimed to have leaked a large body of classified documents. In internet chats with Lamo using a pseudonym, Manning allegedly disclosed he was providing materials to WikiLeaks founder and editor-in-chief Julian Assange. Lamo is now a witness in Manning’s trial. "I very much regret the situation that his actions have put him in. He is on my mind every day. I remember what it was to be that young and that idealistic. And when he came to me, he created a situation where there was no right decision. There were simply choices that were between greater and lesser harm. I had to go with the one that resulted in the lesser harm, but still resulted in harm," says Lamo. "The leaks have real potential to do harm or hazard. And then, additionally, they still do long-term damage to U.S. diplomacy with other countries, which in turn weakens our international position."
Jihadin wrote:Once you take the oath and wear the uniform you fall under UCMJ.
And give up your constitutional rights, some are returned in the UCMJ like your Article 31 prohibition against self incrimination (5A). Most are not, it's the way the cookie crumbles.
Jihadin wrote:Once you take the oath and wear the uniform you fall under UCMJ.
And give up your constitutional rights, some are returned in the UCMJ like your Article 31 prohibition against self incrimination (5A). Most are not, it's the way the cookie crumbles.
Quite true. An old saying when I was in "We Protect the Constitution, We don't practice it"
Same right as two witness that prosecution called up that pleaded Article 31 since they already been hammered by Manning action. One was a Master SGT now SFC.
Manning dumped tens or hundreds of thousands on documents classified secret or above on the internet. There is NO way he knew the contents of and reprecussions of releasing those documents. Therefore, any "activism" he may have been taking part in was, at best, inadvertent and, at worst, merely an excuse to cover his actions ex post facto.
My opinion is that he was a loser looking for a little fame in the anonymous, wikileaks, and 4chan circles; but that's why I'm not on the panel.
AustonT wrote:As a matter of fact few people are tried for treason, that doesn't absolve them of being labeled traitors any more than a plea bargain for 3rd degree sexual assault makes the offender any less a rapist .
If we're setting aside laws against defamation, sure; you can call anyone, anything you want.
AustonT wrote:
I as an American can not be Treasonous in Ghana I hold no allegiance to them.
The last time I swore allegiance to the US was when I was ~10.
Can I be considered a traitor if I sell intelligence to interested parties?
AustonT wrote:As a matter of fact few people are tried for treason, that doesn't absolve them of being labeled traitors any more than a plea bargain for 3rd degree sexual assault makes the offender any less a rapist .
If we're setting aside laws against defamation, sure; you can call anyone, anything you want.
AustonT wrote:
I as an American can not be Treasonous in Ghana I hold no allegiance to them.
The last time I swore allegiance to the US was when I was ~10.
Can I be considered a traitor if I sell intelligence to interested parties?
Yup, the law doesn't say that you must have taken an oath to be labelled a traitor. Didn't Johnny Taliban (Forgot his surname) who was captured back in 2002 fighting for the Taliban get charged with treason? The standards of proof for treason are pretty high if I recall correctly, so that may be a reason it is so rarely leveled as a charge against someone. Much easier to get them on mishandling sensitive materials etc...
There are worse traitors than Manning around. Perhaps not by the letter of the law, but in terms of ideology I would consider some prominent members of the previous administration to be traitors.
YMMV.
His name was John Walker Lindh. He was not charged with Treason.
From the wiki:
Conspiracy to murder US citizens or US nationals
Two counts of providing material support and resources to terrorist organizations
One count of supplying services to the Taliban.
Conspiracy to contribute services to Al Qaeda
Contributing services to Al Qaeda
Conspiracy to supply services to the Taliban
Using and carrying firearms and destructive devices during crimes of violence
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Yup, the law doesn't say that you must have taken an oath to be labelled a traitor.
Outside defamation, you can be labelled as anything that anyone wants. I can point at person X and say "Lol, rapist." regardless of his actions insofar as my labeling does not harm him.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Didn't Johnny Taliban (Forgot his surname) who was captured back in 2002 fighting for the Taliban get charged with treason? The standards of proof for treason are pretty high if I recall correctly, so that may be a reason it is so rarely leveled as a charge against someone. Much easier to get them on mishandling sensitive materials etc...
John Walker Lindh, and no, not even he was tried for treason.
To speak to the crime as Constitutionally defined, it would be difficult to prove that Manning gave aid or comfort to enemies of the United States. Firstly because "...enemies of the United States." is incredibly vague, and secondly because the confession to crime would require two witnesses (difficult to secure). Then there's the matter of intentionality; in essence, did Manning intend to give "aid or comfort" to enemies of the United States? And further, what are "enemies of the United States?"
dogma wrote:
The last time I swore allegiance to the US was when I was ~10.
Can I be considered a traitor if I sell intelligence to interested parties?
I can only guess that Tomoya Kawakita Probably never swore allegiance to the US or if he had at 10 was probably as far away from that statement as you are now for the actions he was convicted of treason for. So, yes. I'm sure given enough evidence you could be charged and tried with treason although since some sort of oath is generally required before receiving intelligence legally you would probably have to also collect it your self which rides it's way into espionage, which is a much easier conviction to obtain...and yet still treasonous at it's core if you commit espionage against your own state.
(a) Nature of offense. Giving intelligence to the enemy is a particular case of corresponding with the enemy made more serious by the fact that the communication contains intelligence that may be useful to the enemy for any of the many reasons that make information valuable to belligerents. This intelligence may be conveyed by direct or indirect means.
Ahh well then I'd say it's the state for which you have a personal allegiance to before some particular act that would be described as treasonous.
I think it's a pretty well accepted fact that the confederate generals that most people can name were traitors. By constitutional definition no less. But applied morally, most of them felt that their allegiance was to their state as a PART of the union and once that state seceded so did their obligation.
I use that to illustrate that legally speaking one Robert Lee committed treason against the United States by waging war against her, but had he sided wit the Union morally he would have been a traitor to his allegiance to his state.
I hope that convey's my message with a contextual example.
If you took the nature of the offense absent the last sentence Manning would be innocent of an Art. 104 offense but the last line is so nebulous as to allow him to at least be charged with it.
The intent, content, and method of the communication, correspondence, or intercourse are immaterial. No response or receipt by the enemy is required. The offense is complete the moment the communication, correspondence, or intercourse issues from the accused.
all they have to do is prove an FIS they can label an "enemy" accessed it on Wikileaks and the kid is totally fethed.
talking about accessing the info its recorded on his profile what transpired. Also the fact you need your CAC card to log into a US military computer. The operating system is mirrored
First of all feth CAC reader only systems, I blame Dozens of trips to the DFAC and then back to Ops for that fething policy. And yes...he's totally hosed. There's no way he's not going down for SOMETHING, at this point it's how bad he goes down. (insert sexual comment here)
CAC is the bane of my existence. Especially the **** Sergeant Major on uniform patrol at the DFAC when I try to convince the Triple Canopy guys to let me through.
"Sorry, Chief, no CAC, no entry - oh and blouse your flight suit"
Which is total bananas ass horse gak because he knows that the velcro doesn't hold em up for gak, and I'll be damned if I'm going to start clouding inside the boots now...
For my own edification what do you fly?
Damn...CAC for the DFAC...thats Iraq? Afghanistan was the old sign in roster. SMAJ's avoid the DFAC for their "On the Spot Correction" jollies when some guy lock and loaded from a marine unit that did not have a good couple of days.
In the good old days it was just some waffle turner with a clicker taking a count, then came IDs, then came Ugandan security and a scanner for CaCs and a sign in for a back up. It was so easy to think your security badge was your CAC too, so check your pockets, feel card, get to DFAC: BADGE FAIL!
It never ceases to amaze me how readily Americans will adopt a collectivist mentality where the military, or national defense, is concerned.
That´s still nothing, at least you US guys dont get your volentering nationalistic suicide bomber brigades televised across the globe a´la iran.
Can anyone in the anti-Manning camp give an example of anyone who's died as a result of his actions?
Personally I am waiting for proof of either, if none happened then certainly no death penalty should be metered out. Nobody deserved the chair for simply embarrassing a bunch of diplomats and basically helping cover holes in the intelligence community but if it is proven that he was the cause of deaths then turn on the amps.
You seem to think its more important to punish a person who MAY have endangered some people than to hold to account those that actually HAVE endangered people
Murdog: I understand your point and can to a degree agree with it.
To me however everything is a matter of cost vs benefit.
Yes you are right, punishing one person who maybe is guilty is clearly wrong but then if you up the ante where is the line where you personally will punish 1000 people who might only maybe be wrong?
Should you punish one who is maybe wrong if it means that should he be wrong you just saved 10 lives by punishing him? 10 000 lives?
Should you punish someone without clear evidence of wrong doing if the cost in the scale is your wife and children getting painfully killed should he happen to be guilty?
Where is the line drawn where we can "accept" maybe punishing someone who is not guilty "just in case"?
Until in the future we develop flawless mind reading machines someone somewhere WILL put this line somewhere weather you like it or not.
I wouldn't call the release of 250 000 documents, exposing corruption and warcrimes, 'a little whistle blowing', more like the biggest whistleblowing case in US history.
Again, at what cost? What if and I say, if, it is later on proven that his super big whistle blowing indeed caused a lot of people to be tortured to death in various other countries?
You see this is what pisses me of with those overly humane liberals who always say not one single human life is worth sacraficing without absolute prof and even then nobody should be killed.
And yet here you are, frothing at the mouth over some whistle blower "hero" exposing thousands of documents that show our own corruption when you k n o w perfectly well this little high moral victory might very well mean the death of many humans.
You just put your own cost-vs-benefit bar in plain sight for all to see and yet you would scold me for putting down mine?
The whole reasoning goes that oh no lets not interrogate that terrorist who just "might" know something to harshly since it is wrong to take a life or violate someones rights BUT at the same time lets call a whistle blower a hero for exposing corruption and screw the casualties this might very well produce as a side effect. Again, as long as your high moral horses are upheld it is ok for YOU people to "maybe" cause deaths but oh so wrong for those not of your opinions to "maybe" cause harm themselves.
The hypocricy is staggering.
the waterboarding of prisoners, the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo
As per the above, it is so wrong to hurt a terrorist who just maybe is guilty but ok to maybe kill a lot of people as long as some whistles can be blows?
You realize the levels of hypocricy here?
Francisco Martin Duran was not tried with treason, and he intended to fire lethal weapons on the President. Why should Manning be?
Would Manning be declared a traitor if he only "intended" to spread classified documents but never did it?
Would Manning be declared a traitor if he only "intended" to spread classified documents but never did it?
no. Aid to the enemy MUST move beynod the planning phase to be considered under UCMJ. although moving the documents from SIPR to NIPR or out of the SCIF constitutes a violation of it's own.
Bradley Manning Faces Life Sentence, While Criminals WikiLeaks Exposed Have Suffered No Consequences–Glenn Greenwald
Democracy Now
We speak with constitutional lawyer and Salon.com blogger Glenn Greenwald about the military pretrial hearing now underway for alleged U.S. Army whistleblower Bradley Manning, who has been accused of releasing classified U.S. documents to WikiLeaks. Greenwald comments on the possible strategy being put forth by Manning’s defense. "All the Manning [tribunal] hearings have been shrouded in secrecy," Greenwald says, noting there may be more transparency in Guantánamo detainee hearings than there has been for the Manning tribunal. "Presumably, his lawyer believes that one of the best ways that they have to keep him out of prison for the next six decades is to argue that he had diminished capacity by virtue of emotional distress over the gender struggles that he had over his sexual orientation being in a military that had a policy of banning those who were openly gay. And so, part of this emotional distress that they’re raising is designed to say that he should be excused from his actions because they were not the byproduct of full choice," says Greenwald, who is openly gay and has been writing extensively about this aspect of Manning’s case. "He is—and I don’t blame him at all—trying to do whatever he can to avoid having his life destroyed, either being killed by the state or locked up in a cage for the rest of his life." [includes rush transcript]
Good lord there are a lot of things wrong with that little blurb from Democracy Now, starting with the ridiculous title. It is a reminder of why we can't have nice things.
Edit: You know something is amiss when Melissa, biccat, and I can all look at something and think "by jove, just look at the left wing bias". This has nothing to do with the Manning issue itself, but the disingenuous way Democracy Now is framing the issue.
One of the other political action groups I get email alerts from has mentioned a couple of things which it says are mistreatments/violations of the UCMJ.
Jihadin or another person more familiar, would you be so kind as to advise?
One was that the UCMJ called for a speedy trial, within 120 days.
Another that Investigating Officer Paul Almanza has allowed witnesses to submit unsworn statements without appearing in court, which is not allowed under military law.
Ahtman wrote:You know something is amiss when Melissa, biccat, and I can all look at something and think "by jove, just look at the left wing bias". This has nothing to do with the Manning issue itself, but the disingenuous way Democracy Now is framing the issue.
I don't know why you dragged my name into this.
It should be disappointing to those on the left that such strident defenders as Mr. Greenwald (who may not actually be an attorney) are leaping to the defense of Mr. Manning. Even if you agree with the results, his actions were most definitely criminal.
I wonder how much of this bias exists because of his sexuality.
Melissia wrote:That article made not just my brain, but also my face hurt by reading it.
It's more biased than Biccat.
So, saying that they defense plans to plead that Manning did not have full faculty of his reasoning due to stress over his status as Gay during DADT so he can avoid prison is biased? Seemed pretty factual to me, assuming that IS what the defense plans to do. Basically, trying to plead that he was temporarily insane.
I don't think it will work, but that's the plan.
The only part that seemed subjective to me was when it said, [paraphrase]"This case is being treated with more secrecy than a Guantanamo Tribunal."[/paraphrase] That part seemed a bit excessive.
Otherwise, what was so objectionable?
@Biccat- Mr. Greenwald is a well known 1st Amendment attorney.
Easy E wrote:@Biccat- Mr. Greenwald is a well known 1st Amendment attorney.
If Mr. Greenwald is not a registered attorney, referring to him as such (and his failure to correct such a reference) could subject him to criminal liability for unauthorized practice of law.
His status is listed as "suspended" in New York. I'm not sure if this is similar to "inactive" or if his registration is invalid. He could be licensed in another state, but I really don't care enough to look.
biccat wrote:I wonder how much of this bias exists because of his sexuality.
I doubt very much of it.
Mostly, I think, he attacked the US government and "reveeled ebull sekretz" so he's a hero in their eyes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote:So, saying that they defense plans to plead that Manning did not have full faculty of his reasoning due to stress over his status as Gay during DADT so he can avoid prison is biased?
No, I'm saying that particular article is more biased than a biography of Barrack Obama as written by Newt with the assistance of the collectvie efforts of the Republican primary candidates.
Easy E wrote:@Biccat- Mr. Greenwald is a well known 1st Amendment attorney.
If Mr. Greenwald is not a registered attorney, referring to him as such (and his failure to correct such a reference) could subject him to criminal liability for unauthorized practice of law.
His status is listed as "suspended" in New York. I'm not sure if this is similar to "inactive" or if his registration is invalid. He could be licensed in another state, but I really don't care enough to look.
Easy E wrote:@Biccat- Mr. Greenwald is a well known 1st Amendment attorney.
If Mr. Greenwald is not a registered attorney, referring to him as such (and his failure to correct such a reference) could subject him to criminal liability for unauthorized practice of law.
Easy E wrote:So, saying that they defense plans to plead that Manning did not have full faculty of his reasoning due to stress over his status as Gay during DADT so he can avoid prison is biased?
It's a weak defense at best. Back in 2007 I remember a meeting between Top and all the Section Leaders where we discussed two soldiers one male and one female that we probably (they were) homosexual and our concerns. Our concerns were LOSING them and protecting valued members of our organization. In the greater Intelligence community at least in my experience the focus of enlisted leadership focused on skills and ability not sexuality. There was no realistic agitation that I recall about removing DADT at the time and the culture was of acceptance. I'm sure everyones institutional experience is different but I don't see this defense working out for him.
Got one with your Austo. Top made a body bulding E6 the Urinalysis NCO. E6 was gay but we did not care because he does a damn good job. His personnal life did not flow into his professional life.
Easy E wrote:So, saying that they defense plans to plead that Manning did not have full faculty of his reasoning due to stress over his status as Gay during DADT so he can avoid prison is biased?
It's a weak defense at best. Back in 2007 I remember a meeting between Top and all the Section Leaders where we discussed two soldiers one male and one female that we probably (they were) homosexual and our concerns. Our concerns were LOSING them and protecting valued members of our organization. In the greater Intelligence community at least in my experience the focus of enlisted leadership focused on skills and ability not sexuality. There was no realistic agitation that I recall about removing DADT at the time and the culture was of acceptance. I'm sure everyones institutional experience is different but I don't see this defense working out for him.
Totally agree. Weak defense. If that's their defense, I'm pretty sure he's done. Liek I said, the only real question is what the sentence is going to be.
I'm just not sure I see where it was a completely bias story, just because it pointed out what the weak defense argument was going to be. I'm sure it is because I'm just an idiot. Perhaps Greenwald's quote was too full of purple prose and not cold enough?
Someone mentioned earlier that when you take the oath, you lose certain rights. Now, I always believed that the American fighting man (or woman) was part of the old ideal of the Republic i.e a citizen in uniform, who would go back to the farm when the fighting was done or something like that. Wasn't this ideal one of the core tennents of the revolution a la George Washington resigning when the conflict was over? I thought this was still the case...
Interesting. However, it should be noted that in the clip (and link) posted he is specifically referred to as "Attorney Glen Greenwald", not "former attorney." His salon.com bio does correctly say he is a former lawyer.
This might not seem like a big thing to most people, but the legal profession protects their home turf pretty strongly. When I moved from one state to another, the new state told me that I couldn't refer to myself as an "attorney" until I passed the bar, despite the fact that I was licensed in another state. Doing so could constitute the unauthorized practice of law.
To his credit, Mr. Greenwald has obviously taken steps to clarify this. Democracynow obviously hasn't.
Jihadin wrote:Once you take the oath and wear the uniform you fall under UCMJ.
And give up your constitutional rights, some are returned in the UCMJ like your Article 31 prohibition against self incrimination (5A). Most are not, it's the way the cookie crumbles.
I'm not showing you where I live though nor go into detail on what I do. You try to sell me something then coffee on you. Besides if AustonT and Frazz and GAWD forbid...Mattrym wants to meet me (forgot Seattle soon) then no issue. I'm confident in myself for anyone that comes up to me and say "DakkaDakke" and I buy them coffee. No Kool Aid....coffee.
