FORT MEADE, Md. – U.S. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning is a whistleblower who wanted to inform the American public about the troubling things he saw in the war zone, and the soldier is willing to pay the price for giving secrets to WikiLeaks, his defense attorney said Friday.
During closing arguments, attorney David Coombs disputed what prosecutors said a day earlier, that Manning was a traitor whose only mission as an intelligence analyst was to give classified information to the anti-secrecy website and bask in the attention.
"He's not seeking attention. He saying he's willing to accept the price" for what he has done, Coombs said.
Manning, 25, is charged with 21 offenses, but the most serious is aiding the enemy. A conviction on that could land him in prison for the rest of his life.
Coombs said the prosecution cherry-picked Manning's chats with convicted computer hacker Adrian Lamo to make their case. He urged the judge to read the entire chat log to put things in context.
For example, he said the prosecution cited a line Manning wrote to Lamo: "If you had unprecedented access to classified networks, 14 hours a day, seven days a week, for eight-plus months, what would you do?"
Coombs pointed out Manning also wrote, "Hypothetical question: If you had free reign over classified networks over a long period of time, if you saw incredible things, awful things, things that belonged in the public domain and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington, D.C., what would you do?"
Lamo turned the soldier in to authorities in May 2010.
Coombs also said Manning's chat with Lamo about Hillary Clinton and other diplomats around the world having a heart attack over what was leaked was taken out of context.
A military judge, not a jury, is hearing the case at Manning's request. Army Col. Denise Lind will deliberate after closing arguments, but it's not clear when she will rule.
Speaking for more than five hours Thursday, Maj. Ashden Fein told the judge Manning gave secrets to a group of anarchists, knowing the material would be seen by the terrorist group al-Qaida.
"WikiLeaks was merely the platform which Pfc. Manning used to ensure all the information was available for the world, including enemies of the United States," Fein said.
Coombs has said Manning was troubled by what he saw in the war -- and at the same time was struggling as a gay man in the era of "don't ask don't tell." Those struggles made him want to do something to make a difference and he hoped revealing what was going on in Iraq and Afghanistan and U.S. diplomacy would inspire debate and reform in American foreign and military policy.
A native of Crescent, Okla., Manning has acknowledged giving WikiLeaks some 700,000 battlefield reports, diplomatic cables and videos. But he says he didn't believe the information would harm troops in Afghanistan and Iraq or threaten national security.
"The amount of the documents in this case, actually is the best evidence that he was discreet in what he chose because if he was indiscriminate, if he was systematically harvesting, we wouldn't be talking about a few hundred thousand documents -- we'd be talking about millions of documents," Coombs said.
Coombs showed three snippets of video from a 2007 U.S. Apache helicopter attack Manning leaked, showing troops firing on a small crowd of men on a Baghdad sidewalk, killing at least nine men, including a Reuters news photographer and his driver. Coombs said the loss of civilian lives shocked and horrified the young soldier.
"You have to look at that from the point of view of a guy who cared about human life," Coombs said.
Prosecutors argued Manning only cared about himself. The government and Manning's attorneys also disagree on when the soldier started giving material to WikiLeaks. Prosecutors believe it was in late 2009, shortly after his deployment in Iraq began. Manning has said it started in February the following year.
The verdict and any sentence will be reviewed, and could be reduced, by the commander of the Military District of Washington, currently Maj. Gen. Jeffery S. Buchanan.
SGT Daniel Padgett worked in the SCIF with PFC Manning. He was tasked to be the Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge (NCIOC), even though he had no formal training and was not an NCO at the time.
SGT Padgett testified about an incident involving PFC Manning in which he flipped over a table which had computers on it. SGT Padgett said he was counseling PFC Manning after he had been late for duty and that PFC Manning stared blankly ahead and then flipped over the table. Contrary to the testimony of CPT Lim and CPT Fulton, SGT Padgett said PFC Manning did not reach for a gun from the gun rack, and was restrained by soldiers to keep him from getting anything that could harm himself. SGT Padgett said he could not recall talking to MSG Adkins or any commanding officers about the incident. There was also no disciplinary action against PFC Manning.
CPT Overgaard of the prosecution cross-examined SGT Padgett about whether or not music was authorized in the SCIF. SGT Padgett said that there were music files on the shared drive, and that soldiers had been allowed to bring CDs in, as long as they were not rewritable. He said there were no movies on the shared drive.
SGT Padgett was also asked about Operation Security and his training thereof. SGT Padgett said he had never signed a non-disclosure agreement reminding him to safeguard classified information, but he also said that soldiers were expected to do so, especially those with security clearances. CPT Overgaard asked SGT Padgett if he had ever burned classified information on a CD for personal use. He answered, “No.”
Defense Witness Testimony: Captain Barclay Keay
CPT Barclay Keay a supervisor of three soldiers on the night shift in the SCIF, including PFC Manning. CPT Keay said there were no non-commissioned officers (NCOs) during the night shift because it was not as active as the daytime.
CPT Keay testified that he saw soldiers watching video clips and listening to music, but had never seen them playing video games on the computers. CPT Keay had given a sworn statement to the Secretary of the Army investigator which said he did not find it appropriate to have any media in the SCIF. He thought having media on the computers would be seen negatively and that the military should not be so liberal about it. Despite believing it to be inappropriate, CPT Keay was told that allowing the soldiers to have music was an “accepted practice” and helped the soldiers to be “more productive.”
CPT Keay also said he believed PFC Manning wanted to be a good soldier, and that he tried to do—and did—good analytical work.
Bear in mind this is UCMJ and not a civilian court system. Little bugger going to get nailed with UCMJ violations regardless.
He's getting prosecuted under UCMJ. No escaping that. He's going to get charged for violating UCMJ articles. No escaping that. His counseling packet I think blew the "Whistleblower" option out the window. If he wanted "whistleblowing" status then he should have been logging his time spent on calls to "Fraud, Waste, and Abuse" instead he downloaded, I use the term from NSA, megadata on a thumbdrive and dropped it right into Wikileak lap. Life for the critter...I let him take up oxygen for the next 20+ years busting big rocks into little rocks on Thursday
I wonder what will happen to those personnel who were shown to be killing civilians and enjoying themselves whilst doing it? Will they be subjected to the same amount of prosecution? Silly question...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I wonder what will happen to those personnel who were shown to be killing civilians and enjoying themselves whilst doing it? Will they be subjected to the same amount of prosecution? Silly question...
No. We already have precedent that Obama doesn't care if you commit war crimes (in this case by deliberately killing non-combatants trying to give first aid to the wounded), as long as nobody gets in the way of the coverup.
Sasori wrote: I hope he gets life if Leavenworth, I'm sure he's not going to be executed.
The prosecution isn't seeking the death penalty and what Manning has already confessed to will put him away for a long time. Remember sports fans Manning plead guilty to MOST of the charges. This kid's going on a vacation to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas for a long time, the only thing going on in that court room right now is haggling over exactly how long till he sees daylight again.
I don't think he's either a Traitor or Whistleblower.
He dumped too much information to be a whistleblower. He didn’t reveal information of specific wrongdoing, he just grabbed as much as he could. That there was actual dirt in there was pure coincidence.
I also don't think he meant his country harm. I think he was probably motivated by the best of intentions and was manipulated by far more devious minds than his.
LuciusAR wrote: I don't think he's either a Traitor or Whistleblower.
He dumped too much information to be a whistleblower. He didn’t reveal information of specific wrongdoing, he just grabbed as much as he could. That there was actual dirt in there was pure coincidence.
I also don't think he meant his country harm. I think he was probably motivated by the best of intentions and was manipulated by far more devious minds than his.
He's a silly boy. Nothing more.
He was an angry little boy who wanted to lash out. He was trying to do harm. He had just been demoted and had been recommended for discharge when he made his "first" leak. He had exhibited violent tendencies at work, and had been actively trying to get himself removed from the military, by openly sharing his sexual orientation, and then trying to pull a Clinger. There was nothing at all about this that was "best intentions". He hated the Army, he wanted out, and he decided that he was going to do as much damage as he could while he did it.
Sasori wrote: I hope he gets life if Leavenworth, I'm sure he's not going to be executed.
The prosecution isn't seeking the death penalty and what Manning has already confessed to will put him away for a long time. Remember sports fans Manning plead guilty to MOST of the charges. This kid's going on a vacation to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas for a long time, the only thing going on in that court room right now is haggling over exactly how long till he sees daylight again.
I think he'll see daylight every day from roughly sunrise to sunset . The question remains, how long will he be able to go before he can taste a McDonald's cheeseburger, fries, and a coke?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I wonder what will happen to those personnel who were shown to be killing civilians and enjoying themselves whilst doing it? Will they be subjected to the same amount of prosecution? Silly question...
Depends on which personnel you're talking about.
Do you know?
I really, really hope you're not talking about the so-called "Collateral Murder" video.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I wonder what will happen to those personnel who were shown to be killing civilians and enjoying themselves whilst doing it? Will they be subjected to the same amount of prosecution? Silly question...
Depends on which personnel you're talking about.
Do you know?
I really, really hope you're not talking about the so-called "Collateral Murder" video.
That's the only release that he made that hit mainstream.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I wonder what will happen to those personnel who were shown to be killing civilians and enjoying themselves whilst doing it? Will they be subjected to the same amount of prosecution? Silly question...
It's war, collateral damage happens, it's unfortunate but, it's war.
It's the standard defense for when you are in trouble for being a gakbird at work and lash out in an illegal manner.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I wonder what will happen to those personnel who were shown to be killing civilians and enjoying themselves whilst doing it? Will they be subjected to the same amount of prosecution? Silly question...
I bet if you did even rudimentary research into this you'd find plenty of prosecution on that sort of thing.
AlexHolker wrote:No. We already have precedent that Obama doesn't care if you commit war crimes (in this case by deliberately killing non-combatants trying to give first aid to the wounded), as long as nobody gets in the way of the coverup.
I'm glad to see the irrational Obama hate isn't restricted to the backwaters of the U-S-of-A.
He dumped too much information to be a whistleblower. He didn’t reveal information of specific wrongdoing, he just grabbed as much as he could. That there was actual dirt in there was pure coincidence.
This is the thing for me, it wasn't like he had the pentagon papers, it was an indiscriminate data dump.
When you leak secrets, you need to be sure that the ends justify the means. It needs to be so good that you get pardoned for it by the next president. If it's not the pentagon papers or something, I'm not going to be really happy with you for it.
Like, snowden revealed something that I'm personally pretty glad we know now. Manning just dumped a bunch of secrets for no particular reason.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I wonder what will happen to those personnel who were shown to be killing civilians and enjoying themselves whilst doing it? Will they be subjected to the same amount of prosecution? Silly question...
It's war, collateral damage happens, it's unfortunate but, it's war.
Agreed, but there's a big difference between accidently dropping a bomb on somebody's house, and shooting up people just for the fun of it.
He dumped too much information to be a whistleblower. He didn’t reveal information of specific wrongdoing, he just grabbed as much as he could. That there was actual dirt in there was pure coincidence.
This is the thing for me, it wasn't like he had the pentagon papers, it was an indiscriminate data dump.
When you leak secrets, you need to be sure that the ends justify the means. It needs to be so good that you get pardoned for it by the next president. If it's not the pentagon papers or something, I'm not going to be really happy with you for it.
Like, snowden revealed something that I'm personally pretty glad we know now. Manning just dumped a bunch of secrets for no particular reason.
I was going to say exactly the same thing!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote: It's the standard defense for when you are in trouble for being a gakbird at work and lash out in an illegal manner.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I wonder what will happen to those personnel who were shown to be killing civilians and enjoying themselves whilst doing it? Will they be subjected to the same amount of prosecution? Silly question...
I bet if you did even rudimentary research into this you'd find plenty of prosecution on that sort of thing.
AlexHolker wrote:No. We already have precedent that Obama doesn't care if you commit war crimes (in this case by deliberately killing non-combatants trying to give first aid to the wounded), as long as nobody gets in the way of the coverup.
I'm glad to see the irrational Obama hate isn't restricted to the backwaters of the U-S-of-A.
I did some research on previous cases. There was a guy (can't remember his name) who killed a lot of villagers in some south-east Asian country. He was pardoned for his crimes.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Agreed, but there's a big difference between accidently dropping a bomb on somebody's house, and shooting up people just for the fun of it.
Seriously, what incident are you talking about?
The only one I can think of is the British PMC group's video.
LordofHats wrote: I do sit here an ponder over all these cases of whistleblowers lately, why the 'heroes' are failures in their professional lives. Intriguing.
Some historical perspective may give the insight you need!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I did some research on previous cases. There was a guy (can't remember his name) who killed a lot of villagers in some south-east Asian country. He was pardoned for his crimes.
You sort of remember something you think happened and have no details to support it. That is some really compelling evidence you have there to back up that the President is indifferent to war crimes.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I did some research on previous cases. There was a guy (can't remember his name) who killed a lot of villagers in some south-east Asian country. He was pardoned for his crimes.
You sort of remember something you think happened and have no details to support it. That is some really compelling evidence you have there to back up that the President is indifferent to war crimes.
Thank you, you put that a lot more elequently that I was trying to.
LordofHats wrote: I do sit here an ponder over all these cases of whistleblowers lately, why the 'heroes' are failures in their professional lives. Intriguing.
Because most of them aren't true whistleblowers... There are certain steps that MUST be taken (at least within the army) in order to get that sort of protection.
Manning most definitely is a traitor, it's just too bad he won't get the traitors punishment. He should definitely lose the "whistleblower" defense claim, because he did none of the things that would give you that status. He's just some punk kid who thought being in the army would be like college, or at worst, the national guard.
As for some of the other recent whistle blower cases (like snowden) I admit, I am not very well read up on, and can't really comment too much on whether the govt is right in going after them or not. Well, the F/F guy is getting shafted, IMO, which points to some definite issues and probable need for the whistle blower protection. I do agree also with previous posters in that what snowden leaked to the public is kinda good to know, although I don't really think people have much to worry about ultimately.
LordofHats wrote: I do sit here an ponder over all these cases of whistleblowers lately, why the 'heroes' are failures in their professional lives. Intriguing.
Because most of them aren't true whistleblowers... There are certain steps that MUST be taken (at least within the army) in order to get that sort of protection.
Manning most definitely is a traitor, it's just too bad he won't get the traitors punishment. He should definitely lose the "whistleblower" defense claim, because he did none of the things that would give you that status. He's just some punk kid who thought being in the army would be like college, or at worst, the national guard.
As for some of the other recent whistle blower cases (like snowden) I admit, I am not very well read up on, and can't really comment too much on whether the govt is right in going after them or not. Well, the F/F guy is getting shafted, IMO, which points to some definite issues and probable need for the whistle blower protection. I do agree also with previous posters in that what snowden leaked to the public is kinda good to know, although I don't really think people have much to worry about ultimately.
Wait are you saying I don't need to worry about the government listening to my phone calls talking about warhammer, or when I order pizzas? Snowden is a traitor, the monitoring doesn't bother me, as long as you aren't planning terrorist attacks, don't worry about it.
Manning should get 20 plus years for treason against the country he swore to protect. Things happen in war, if you compare the collateral damage now to WWII, there is a big different of loss of civilian life.
Total Dead
'World War II fatality statistics vary, with estimates of total dead ranging from 50 million to more than 80 million.[1] The sources cited in this article document an estimated death toll in World War II that range from approximately 60 to 85 million, making it the deadliest war in world history in absolute terms of total dead but not in terms of deaths relative to the world population. The higher figure of 85 million includes deaths from war-related disease and famine. Civilians killed totaled from 38 to 55 million, including 13 to 20 million from war-related disease and famine. Total military dead: from 22 to 25 million, including deaths in captivity of about 5 million prisoners of war"
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I did some research on previous cases. There was a guy (can't remember his name) who killed a lot of villagers in some south-east Asian country. He was pardoned for his crimes.
You sort of remember something you think happened and have no details to support it. That is some really compelling evidence you have there to back up that the President is indifferent to war crimes.
I was referring to the My Lai massacre where the only guy convicted was given a presidential pardon.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I did some research on previous cases. There was a guy (can't remember his name) who killed a lot of villagers in some south-east Asian country. He was pardoned for his crimes.
You sort of remember something you think happened and have no details to support it. That is some really compelling evidence you have there to back up that the President is indifferent to war crimes.
I was referring to the My Lai massacre where the only guy convicted was given a presidential pardon.
So you said President Obama doesn't care, then when called on it, you reference something from over 40 years ago. That makes no sense.
LordofHats wrote: I do sit here an ponder over all these cases of whistleblowers lately, why the 'heroes' are failures in their professional lives. Intriguing.
Because most of them aren't true whistleblowers... There are certain steps that MUST be taken (at least within the army) in order to get that sort of protection.
Manning most definitely is a traitor, it's just too bad he won't get the traitors punishment. He should definitely lose the "whistleblower" defense claim, because he did none of the things that would give you that status. He's just some punk kid who thought being in the army would be like college, or at worst, the national guard.
As for some of the other recent whistle blower cases (like snowden) I admit, I am not very well read up on, and can't really comment too much on whether the govt is right in going after them or not. Well, the F/F guy is getting shafted, IMO, which points to some definite issues and probable need for the whistle blower protection. I do agree also with previous posters in that what snowden leaked to the public is kinda good to know, although I don't really think people have much to worry about ultimately.
By your logic, then it's a pity that George Washington didn't receive a traitor's punishment. After all, he did break his oath of allegiance to the British Crown. From the top of my head, nothing much happened to Jefferson Davis or Robert E Lee after the civil war, either.
Sometimes, people break the law for justice. I happen to think that Washington was right in the actions he took. In Manning's case, yeah, he broke the military code, but a life sentence seems to me as somebody's way of getting back at him for the embarrassment he caused. By the way some people reacted, you'd think he's sold atomic secrets to the Soviets. 5 years would suffice for Manning.
Whistleblowers with genuine secrets to expose that are in the public interest, do need protection.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I did some research on previous cases. There was a guy (can't remember his name) who killed a lot of villagers in some south-east Asian country. He was pardoned for his crimes.
You sort of remember something you think happened and have no details to support it. That is some really compelling evidence you have there to back up that the President is indifferent to war crimes.
I was referring to the My Lai massacre where the only guy convicted was given a presidential pardon.
So you said President Obama doesn't care, then when called on it, you reference something from over 40 years ago. That makes no sense.
Historical perspective, historical precedent. Obama has been using the 1917 espionage act to go after whistleblowers. Should that be ignored because it's old?
A lot of people, lately, have been concerned over 4th amendment violations. Should that be ignored because it's 200+ years old?
LordofHats wrote: I do sit here an ponder over all these cases of whistleblowers lately, why the 'heroes' are failures in their professional lives. Intriguing.
Because most of them aren't true whistleblowers... There are certain steps that MUST be taken (at least within the army) in order to get that sort of protection.
Manning most definitely is a traitor, it's just too bad he won't get the traitors punishment. He should definitely lose the "whistleblower" defense claim, because he did none of the things that would give you that status. He's just some punk kid who thought being in the army would be like college, or at worst, the national guard.
As for some of the other recent whistle blower cases (like snowden) I admit, I am not very well read up on, and can't really comment too much on whether the govt is right in going after them or not. Well, the F/F guy is getting shafted, IMO, which points to some definite issues and probable need for the whistle blower protection. I do agree also with previous posters in that what snowden leaked to the public is kinda good to know, although I don't really think people have much to worry about ultimately.
By your logic, then it's a pity that George Washington didn't receive a traitor's punishment. After all, he did break his oath of allegiance to the British Crown. From the top of my head, nothing much happened to Jefferson Davis or Robert E Lee after the civil war, either.
Sometimes, people break the law for justice. I happen to think that Washington was right in the actions he took. In Manning's case, yeah, he broke the military code, but a life sentence seems to me as somebody's way of getting back at him for the embarrassment he caused. By the way some people reacted, you'd think he's sold atomic secrets to the Soviets. 5 years would suffice for Manning.
Whistleblowers with genuine secrets to expose that are in the public interest, do need protection.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I did some research on previous cases. There was a guy (can't remember his name) who killed a lot of villagers in some south-east Asian country. He was pardoned for his crimes.
You sort of remember something you think happened and have no details to support it. That is some really compelling evidence you have there to back up that the President is indifferent to war crimes.
I was referring to the My Lai massacre where the only guy convicted was given a presidential pardon.
So you said President Obama doesn't care, then when called on it, you reference something from over 40 years ago. That makes no sense.
Historical perspective, historical precedent. Obama has been using the 1917 espionage act to go after whistleblowers. Should that be ignored because it's old?
A lot of people, lately, have been concerned over 4th amendment violations. Should that be ignored because it's 200+ years old?
Really? Now we are going to bring George Washington into this?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Whistleblowers with genuine secrets to expose that are in the public interest, do need protection.
Seems odd to berate him, then make the exact same argument. Manning didn't expose 'genuine secrets', he exposed everything he could get his hands, as fast as he could get his hands on it. Your comparison to George Washington, as well as Davis and Lee, are not very well thought out, and lack context.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Whistleblowers with genuine secrets to expose that are in the public interest, do need protection.
Seems odd to berate him, then make the exact same argument. Manning didn't expose 'genuine secrets', he exposed everything he could get his hands, as fast as he could get his hands on it. Your comparison to George Washington, as well as Davis and Lee, are not very well thought out, and lack context.
Considering he brought up the "Collateral Murder" video, which was 17 out of 30 odd minutes of footage--I am not surprised.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Whistleblowers with genuine secrets to expose that are in the public interest, do need protection.
Seems odd to berate him, then make the exact same argument. Manning didn't expose 'genuine secrets', he exposed everything he could get his hands, as fast as he could get his hands on it. Your comparison to George Washington, as well as Davis and Lee, are not very well thought out, and lack context.
Somebody made the point that he was a traitor and should be severely dealt with. My points is that sometimes you have to look at the reasons why people become traitors. Sometimes, it's morally justified, other times it is not, hence the historical examples.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Whistleblowers with genuine secrets to expose that are in the public interest, do need protection.
Seems odd to berate him, then make the exact same argument. Manning didn't expose 'genuine secrets', he exposed everything he could get his hands, as fast as he could get his hands on it. Your comparison to George Washington, as well as Davis and Lee, are not very well thought out, and lack context.
Considering he brought up the "Collateral Murder" video, which was 17 out of 30 odd minutes of footage--I am not surprised.
The 15-6 investigations from that incident are interesting reading. The AKs and RPGs found with the bodies seem to invalidate the unlawful killing claim. For example, guy closest to the camera had an RPG round underneath him. At least 1 AKM and multiple AKs and RPGs there too.
Noting that insurgents loved to film/photograph their engagements (for use as recruiting tools and as AAR tools) even if the Apache pilots could identify the camera, the presence of that camera within a group of armed men engaging friendly ground troops would in no way negate the responsibility to engage that group to defend the ground forces.
Back on topic: The judge is supposed to give her verdict today. I don't think sentencing is concurrent though.
The 15-6 investigations from that incident are interesting reading. The AKs and RPGs found with the bodies seem to invalidate the unlawful killing claim. For example, guy closest to the camera had an RPG round underneath him. At least 1 AKM and multiple AKs and RPGs there too.
Noting that insurgents loved to film/photograph their engagements (for use as recruiting tools and as AAR tools) even if the Apache pilots could identify the camera, the presence of that camera within a group of armed men engaging friendly ground troops would in no way negate the responsibility to engage that group to defend the ground forces.
Back on topic: The judge is supposed to give her verdict today. I don't think sentencing is concurrent though.
I wasn't aware of extra footage, but I am under the impression that people walking around with guns in Iraq (just as in the USA) is a normal occurrence, and doesn't necessary mean the individuals concerned are up to no good.
A group of armed guys meeting at night in Iraq isn't all that common an occurence at the height of the war, unless they were the types planning on pulling some bad gak.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I wasn't aware of extra footage, but I am under the impression that people walking around with guns in Iraq (just as in the USA) is a normal occurrence, and doesn't necessary mean the individuals concerned are up to no good.
The extra footage is pretty irrelevant. The weapons are clearly visible in the edited version; they're just not highlighted by Assange's team the way the cameras are.
People walking around with guns in Iraq may or may not be a common occurrence, but people walking around with guns and RPGs in Iraq a few blocks from where elements of an American infantry company's coming under attack? That's a one-way ticket to 30mm City, and rightfully so.
The 15-6 investigations from that incident are interesting reading. The AKs and RPGs found with the bodies seem to invalidate the unlawful killing claim. For example, guy closest to the camera had an RPG round underneath him. At least 1 AKM and multiple AKs and RPGs there too.
Noting that insurgents loved to film/photograph their engagements (for use as recruiting tools and as AAR tools) even if the Apache pilots could identify the camera, the presence of that camera within a group of armed men engaging friendly ground troops would in no way negate the responsibility to engage that group to defend the ground forces.
Back on topic: The judge is supposed to give her verdict today. I don't think sentencing is concurrent though.
I wasn't aware of extra footage, but I am under the impression that people walking around with guns in Iraq (just as in the USA) is a normal occurrence, and doesn't necessary mean the individuals concerned are up to no good.
Except the USA isn't being occupied during a time of war?
"A military court has found Pfc. Bradley Manning, accused of the largest leak of classified information in U.S. history, not guilty of aiding the enemy -- a charge that would have carried a maximum sentence of life in prison. He was found guilty of most of the remaining charges against him, with the judge accepting some of the guilty pleas he made previously to lesser charges."
CptJake wrote: His lawyers were really smart to go for a non-jury trial.
Yeah.
I bet his sentencing is going to be harsh though. An example will be made of him, and I doubt he'll ever breath free air again. Of the 15 counts he was found guilty on, he can face up to 150 years.
I'd wager more. It's been decades since the military has had a large breach of data like this, especially done so flagrantly. Manning made no efforts to cover his actions, he wanted to be caught, wanted to snub his nose at authority. Authority is going to snub it right back at him, and make a clear picture to the rest of us of what is in store if we decide to get stupid.
That's my thought on it at least. I could be totally wrong.
Didn't we already argue about that video a few years ago? Basically any one thing would not have been out of place. A group of guys, a guy with a gun, a guy with a camera, etc.
But putting them all together: Guys with guns and an RPG and a camera moving together near US forces in an area which was currently under military control and curfew etc etc, it was far enough to look at.
Then on top of that, there is a delay between the pilot firing and the bullets reaching the target, since the video was taken from so far away, so you have to judge by what the gunner saw several seconds before the bullets hit, which is even more defensible.
Manning faces a potential sentence of up to 136 years in prison on the charges he was found guilty of Tuesday. The charges to which the Army intelligence analyst pled guilty carried a potential sentence of about 20 years.
djones520 wrote: He was an angry little boy who wanted to lash out. He was trying to do harm. He had just been demoted and had been recommended for discharge when he made his "first" leak. He had exhibited violent tendencies at work, and had been actively trying to get himself removed from the military, by openly sharing his sexual orientation, and then trying to pull a Clinger. There was nothing at all about this that was "best intentions". He hated the Army, he wanted out, and he decided that he was going to do as much damage as he could while he did it.
Jihadin wrote: He's getting prosecuted under UCMJ. No escaping that. He's going to get charged for violating UCMJ articles. No escaping that. His counseling packet I think blew the "Whistleblower" option out the window. If he wanted "whistleblowing" status then he should have been logging his time spent on calls to "Fraud, Waste, and Abuse" instead he downloaded
That's exactly how I see it too, if he was actually concerned about abuses and/or illegal activity then he had many ways to report his concerns. He chose not to and disclosed information in the hope that there was something incriminating there. He was interested in mud slinging and no more.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Up to 154 years *whistle* enjoy your free vacation to Kansas donkey cave.
Somebody made the point that he was a traitor and should be severely dealt with. My points is that sometimes you have to look at the reasons why people become traitors. Sometimes, it's morally justified, other times it is not, hence the historical examples.
Except that Washington was part of a group of people who founded a new nation. If they had lost then that argument would have merit.
Robert E. Lee and Jeff Davis ceceeded from the US, also forming a "new nation" which was completely legal to do at the time.
The guy who blew up the Fast and Furious thing with the guns? Yeah, that was definitely moral, and a whistle blower situation. This kid? Not a fat chance in Hades.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Except that Washington was part of a group of people who founded a new nation. If they had lost then that argument would have merit.
That in no way changes the fact he was a traitor.
If we ignore context and history that would lead us to pretending all acts of treason are the same, and conflate two wildly different acts of treason.
Snowden was selective on what he released for the general public about possible government overstepping their bounds....while Manning just dumped whatever he could grab off the drive...DoS...Military..Diplomats cable....he wasn't selective at all. Besides Snowden still free and would come under Feeral Prosecution....Manning is UCMJ.....
Jihadin wrote: Snowden was selective on what he released for the general public about possible government overstepping their bounds....while Manning just dumped whatever he could grab off the drive...DoS...Military..Diplomats cable....he wasn't selective at all. Besides Snowden still free and would come under Feeral Prosecution....Manning is UCMJ.....
Right so does the fact that he showed some restraint in what information he put out there make snowden not a traitor in your eyes?
Crablezworth wrote: Right so does the fact that he showed some restraint in what information he put out there make snowden not a traitor in your eyes?
Traitor is a complicated, and loaded term. Are we speaking ethically? Legally? Which law? Domestic or International?
I would certainly be more open categorizing Snowden as a whistleblower, but Manning I wouldn't. Just revealing secrets doesn't make one a hero; that is to simplistic a standard.
Both broke the rules. We have Manning but under a different set of laws. Snowden still free but if in hands he be prosecuted under federal law. Manning I'm more pissed off about due to the fact he put others in danger...even though the charge of "aiding the enemy" didn't stick. I would consider "traitor" term if someone was killed over a leak
Crablezworth wrote: Right so does the fact that he showed some restraint in what information he put out there make snowden not a traitor in your eyes?
Traitor is a complicated, and loaded term. Are we speaking ethically? Legally? Which law? Domestic or International?
I would certainly be more open categorizing Snowden as a whistleblower, but Manning I wouldn't. Just revealing secrets doesn't make one a hero; that is to simplistic a standard.
I'd like to think he may have said a word or two about his motivation and intent over the last little while.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Both broke the rules. We have Manning but under a different set of laws. Snowden still free but if in hands he be prosecuted under federal law. Manning I'm more pissed off about due to the fact he put others in danger...even though the charge of "aiding the enemy" didn't stick. I would consider "traitor" term if someone was killed over a leak
I believe they're both charged under laws going back to 1917, manning's charged with more than just espionage, snowden too although fewer charges. Manning's facing like 21-22 charges.
Crablezworth wrote: I'd like to think he may have said a word or two about his motivation and intent over the last little while.
Manning's given reasons, in conjunction with his actions both before and after the leak are needed to get an understanding. If you only ever go by what a person says about themselves you'll find that you'll be frequently disappointed. Also, there is such a thing as dishonesty. It is why we investigate things instead of just taking people at their word. Manning isn't a credible soucre, and his actions are less than honorable. It isn't just leaking something, it is also important how they leak, and what they leak. He fails miserably in those two areas.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I did some research on previous cases. There was a guy (can't remember his name) who killed a lot of villagers in some south-east Asian country. He was pardoned for his crimes.
You sort of remember something you think happened and have no details to support it. That is some really compelling evidence you have there to back up that the President is indifferent to war crimes.
I was referring to the My Lai massacre where the only guy convicted was given a presidential pardon.
Your memory is slightly off.
General Peers of the Peers report fame recommend that 2 Generals, 5 Colonels, 6 Lt Colonels, 3 Majors, 8 Captains, 6 Lts, and 2 Sergeants be prosecuted. Four of them were already dead (it was a war) and 5 had been released have finished their service obligation at the time of the release of the recommendation to bring charges. You got to love General Peers. Imperial Commissar all the way. Here is a link to the report. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/MYL_Peers.htm
The army chose to charge 14 of the above including the Division Commander, include in these were Lt Calley and Calley's commander, Captain Medina. Captain Media's commander had already been killed in action otherwise he would have been sent to a court martial as well.
All of them beat it at Court Martial or had the charged dropped for lack of evidence, except Calley.
Two days later President Nixon made a decision to have Calley released, pending appeal of his sentence, rather than he await the appeal in prison. Calley's sentence was later adjusted, so that he would eventually serve three and one-half years under house arrest at Fort Benning. His house arrest was in a duplex which was about 1 mile from where I lived at the time. There was a mini MP station in the other half of the Duplex and guards at the front and rear of his side of the duplex 24 hours a day for 3 1/2 years. I was never sure if they were to keep him there or to keep other troops from lynching him. He was not popular with the line troops.
Calley was such a poor commander and lacking in so many basic skills that one of the things that was discovered during the investigation was that his troops had seriously considered killing him for their own safety.
SGT Padgett testified about an incident involving PFC Manning in which he flipped over a table which had computers on it. SGT Padgett said he was counseling PFC Manning after he had been late for duty and that PFC Manning stared blankly ahead and then flipped over the table. Contrary to the testimony of CPT Lim and CPT Fulton, SGT Padgett said PFC Manning did not reach for a gun from the gun rack, and was restrained by soldiers to keep him from getting anything that could harm himself. SGT Padgett said he could not recall talking to MSG Adkins or any commanding officers about the incident. There was also no disciplinary action against PFC Manning.
I've a few chuckleheads who vented on me after a negative counseling. Just made me extra aware to keep my thumb on them before they do something "stupid" that be detrimental to their career. If they meet me halfway. The above action I would have removed him from the secure area due with an excuse of "lack of military bearing" and have him on guard mount for about 30 days....
Replying to the post made me realize how badly things have changed in 42 years.
In 1971 most of those officers charged were charged for giving false testimony by submitting information in a manner calculated to mislead.
I read yesterday where General Amos, head of the Marine Corp, perjured himself to a military judge over a secret meeting with a officer defending some enlisted men who pissed on some dead Al Quada. After the officer refused to crucify the troops he had him relieved in violation of law. General Amos is still there.
The Department of Defense "made a mistake" on telling Congress the Special Operations Commander they wanted to talk to had retired and thus he could not testify. A newspaper had to tell congress he was still on active duty and now he will testify tomorrow.
I find it hard to get upset over Private Manning. I read what he released, sue me.
More damage has been done by General Amos (who is a navel aviator and never served in ground combat), General Petraeus (who got more of us killed so he could score political points) and the President and the current chiefs who are all politicians disguised as soldiers who have lied to Congress and are apparently getting away with it.
By the way, Calley's original sentence was life imprisonment at hard labor at Fort Leavenworth, His jury was 6 Officers, 5 of whom had served in Vietnam.
Crablezworth wrote: I'd like to think he may have said a word or two about his motivation and intent over the last little while.
Manning's given reasons, in conjunction with his actions both before and after the leak are needed to get an understanding. If you only ever go by what a person says about themselves you'll find that you'll be frequently disappointed. Also, there is such a thing as dishonesty. It is why we investigate things instead of just taking people at their word. Manning isn't a credible soucre, and his actions are less than honorable. It isn't just leaking something, it is also important how they leak, and what they leak. He fails miserably in those two areas.
He's not a credible source when it comes to his own motivations? Here, let me just ask my neighbour why I had fried chicken for dinner tonight, wouldn't wanna be bias or anything... Has the prosecution independantly verified through credible sources that he's indeed lying about his motivations? Has he made any attempt to deny his actions? Has he not plead guilty to most charges?
To me, his actions seem incredibly honorable. The guy's been through hell, he's also been an open book from the looks of it, even on stuff like his struggle with gender and his homosexuality.
Something not well known to those outside the military. Every month you get a performance counseling. Every negative action is documented. Hence his counseling packet more then likely condemned him. Indicator why his defense lawyers did not go to with "Jury of his Peers" but with just the Judge.
either blue or red pill....he was toast. Judge going to go with what he admitted guilt to..instead of drawing out his sentence phase
Crablezworth wrote: He's not a credible source when it comes to his own motivations?
Is any human? People lie all the time about why they do things. We aren't talking about something as mundane as ordeing dinner here either, so we move away from the point of it not really mattering whether the person lies or not. In cases like this it does matter, and while we should take his words unders consideration, him saying them isn't enough to make them automatically true, which, again, is why we have an investigation. Or as House put it: "I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask."
I can't see how anyone could know all the facts and still come to that conclusion. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I can't see how you added 2+2 to equal potato instead of 4. I can see how someone might think he was trying to do the right thing, but incredibly honorable? I just don't buy it.
Crablezworth wrote: Has the prosecution independently verified through credible sources that he's indeed lying about his motivations?
There is a difference between knowing that humans are unreliable, even able to lie to themselves, and claiming someone has committed perjury. Understanding that people can be unreliable narrators also isn't the same as saying they are lying all the time, either. What he believes his motivations to be certainly play a part, but it isn't the beginning or the end of forming an opinion.
Crablezworth wrote: I'm pretty sure a lot of the people who think manning is a traitor would say the same thing about elsberg and or snowden, to me they're all heroes.
Crablezworth wrote: Has the prosecution independently verified through credible sources that he's indeed lying about his motivations?
There is a difference between knowing that humans are unreliable, even able to lie to themselves, and claiming someone has committed perjury. Understanding that people can be unreliable narrators also isn't the same as saying they are lying all the time, either. What he believes his motivations to be certainly play a part, but it isn't the beginning or the end of forming an opinion.
That's a really long way of saying no, there is no evidence that he is lying about his motivation.
Jihadin wrote: Manning I'm more pissed off about due to the fact he put others in danger...even though the charge of "aiding the enemy" didn't stick.
My apologies for not looking at the revealed data other than what made the headlines but since the charge of "aiding the enemy" had to be dropped i assume he did in fact not endanger others. Maybe you could elaborate why you think otherwise.
Crablezworth wrote: That's a really long way of saying no, there is no evidence that he is lying about his motivation.
There's quite a bit, actually.
Way back during his MOS training, he got in trouble for posting a YouTube video showing off the inside of a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. Even before he was deployed, a couple of his officers didn't want to take him because they felt he was a risk, to himself or others. He was writing to counselors from Iraq talking about gender reassignment surgery. He made the big download of most of the stuff he leaked right after the aforementioned incident with the table flipping, which was the result of him being disciplined for constantly showing up to work late. He punched a chick at another point, and at one point, somebody found him curled up inside a cupboard after carving "I WANT" into a chair. This was while he was giving his "female alter-ego" a digital presence, including YouTube and social media accounts.
Dude was fethed up and wanted out of the Army. He didn't like being around a bunch of not-gay guys with guns.
Jihadin wrote: Something not well known to those outside the military. Every month you're supposed get a performance counseling.
Fixed that for you
@Seaward, that definitely goes a long way to condemning a guy in court, regardless of the words that come out of his, and his defense attorney's mouths.... If he really wanted out the best way would honest to god, have been to gain about 50 pounds and just be fat.
I don't think the kid could even gain 50 lbs......no chest......scawny neck...couldn't even do "family care plan" way to get out...
As to why I think he put the troops in more danger well the video was a good propaganda tool to recruit more fighters.....shooters and planters....we had a lot more planters getting involve over past few years....with bigger IED's....also been mention in Manning tral that OBL had intell that Manning leaked to wikileak..
Crablezworth wrote: That's a really long way of saying no, there is no evidence that he is lying about his motivation.
There's quite a bit, actually.
Way back during his MOS training, he got in trouble for posting a YouTube video showing off the inside of a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. Even before he was deployed, a couple of his officers didn't want to take him because they felt he was a risk, to himself or others. He was writing to counselors from Iraq talking about gender reassignment surgery. He made the big download of most of the stuff he leaked right after the aforementioned incident with the table flipping, which was the result of him being disciplined for constantly showing up to work late. He punched a chick at another point, and at one point, somebody found him curled up inside a cupboard after carving "I WANT" into a chair. This was while he was giving his "female alter-ego" a digital presence, including YouTube and social media accounts.
Dude was fethed up and wanted out of the Army. He didn't like being around a bunch of not-gay guys with guns.
His work behavior is plenty to condemn him. Why did you need to include the transphobia?
Crablezworth wrote: That's a really long way of saying no, there is no evidence that he is lying about his motivation.
There's quite a bit, actually.
Way back during his MOS training, he got in trouble for posting a YouTube video showing off the inside of a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. Even before he was deployed, a couple of his officers didn't want to take him because they felt he was a risk, to himself or others. He was writing to counselors from Iraq talking about gender reassignment surgery. He made the big download of most of the stuff he leaked right after the aforementioned incident with the table flipping, which was the result of him being disciplined for constantly showing up to work late. He punched a chick at another point, and at one point, somebody found him curled up inside a cupboard after carving "I WANT" into a chair. This was while he was giving his "female alter-ego" a digital presence, including YouTube and social media accounts.
Dude was fethed up and wanted out of the Army. He didn't like being around a bunch of not-gay guys with guns.
His work behavior is plenty to condemn him. Why did you need to include the transphobia?
It goes to further show his want to be removed from the military. He spent time building that digital persona, and then emailed links of it to his Commander, trying to use that as a tool to get the axe.
And there is nothing transphobic in simply pointing out he had a cyber female alter-ego.
Crablezworth wrote: That's a really long way of saying no, there is no evidence that he is lying about his motivation.
There's quite a bit, actually.
Way back during his MOS training, he got in trouble for posting a YouTube video showing off the inside of a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. Even before he was deployed, a couple of his officers didn't want to take him because they felt he was a risk, to himself or others. He was writing to counselors from Iraq talking about gender reassignment surgery. He made the big download of most of the stuff he leaked right after the aforementioned incident with the table flipping, which was the result of him being disciplined for constantly showing up to work late. He punched a chick at another point, and at one point, somebody found him curled up inside a cupboard after carving "I WANT" into a chair. This was while he was giving his "female alter-ego" a digital presence, including YouTube and social media accounts.
Dude was fethed up and wanted out of the Army. He didn't like being around a bunch of not-gay guys with guns.
His work behavior is plenty to condemn him. Why did you need to include the transphobia?
It goes to further show his want to be removed from the military. He spent time building that digital persona, and then emailed links of it to his Commander, trying to use that as a tool to get the axe.
And there is nothing transphobic in simply pointing out he had a cyber female alter-ego.
There's something transphobic about pointing out he wanted GRS in a list of things that make him "fethed up". If you read his post without any mentions of that, the conclusion is still "wow, manning was out of his mind". He wrote to counselors that he wanted GRS. Is that a thing you aren't allowed to do?
Before DADT was repealed the occasional scumbag soldier and or Marine trying to get out of their contract by playi g the "gay card" happened with startling regularity. I saw it myself at least once a year.
Which is to say that having these sorts of suspicions, particularly when the behavior was so OTT, isn't automatically homophobic. Or transphobic, for that matter.
Actually, right wrong or indifferent, you can't legally be transgendered in the Army, so seeking out the surgery itself may not be illegal, but it does indicate intent to break a current rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote: Before DADT was repealed the occasional scumbag soldier and or Marine trying to get out of their contract by playi g the "gay card" happened with startling regularity. I saw it myself at least once a year.
Which is to say that having these sorts of suspicions, particularly when the behavior was so OTT, isn't automatically homophobic. Or transphobic, for that matter.
Back in the mid 90s I knew a guy who tried that to get out of a Korea assignment. When the commander told him 'nope, you going' he came back with polaroids which, in the words of the commander, were "graphic and convincing". He ended up not going to Korea and was a civilian pretty quickly.
Monster Rain wrote: Before DADT was repealed the occasional scumbag soldier and or Marine trying to get out of their contract by playi g the "gay card" happened with startling regularity. I saw it myself at least once a year.
Which is to say that having these sorts of suspicions, particularly when the behavior was so OTT, isn't automatically homophobic. Or transphobic, for that matter.
That is a good point, and I agree that there's a decent chance he was dropping those casually to get booted out, however I feel like seaward's post didn't articulate it that way, it was more like "here are the things wrong with manning" and had them in there, you know what I mean? Going back further into what he was replying to, you may be right though. It was probably a miscommunication.
But in the interest of not derailing, I'll drop it.
Monster Rain wrote: Before DADT was repealed the occasional scumbag soldier and or Marine trying to get out of their contract by playi g the "gay card" happened with startling regularity. I saw it myself at least once a year.
Which is to say that having these sorts of suspicions, particularly when the behavior was so OTT, isn't automatically homophobic. Or transphobic, for that matter.
Bingo, he had a long trend of activity trying to get himself removed, and when that didn't work, he tried that method. He started out by telling his roomie he was gay, that didn't go anywhere, so he upped the ante, and tried telling his commander he was a woman trapped in a mans body. Still went no where. He was an angry soldier in a deployed environment, those commanders see stuff like that all of the time.
The assertation that he made claims of being transgendered, and then later saying the guy was fethed in the head is not transphobic. He is fethed in the head, that is beyond doubt. You don't flip tables at work, assault co-workers, and email links of video's of your weekend play to your commander, if your not fethed in the head. He was laying the case out that Manning is not trustworthy, and that is also indisputable.
Yeah looking back at the conversation, I think seaward didn't mean to make any implication, the structure of the post just made it seem that way to me. Moving on.
All this talk of a 120 year sentence is pretty damn excessive. You have people in wall street who caused the recession (arguably doing more damage to normal people) getting a slap off the wrist and probably walking into another well paid job.
I agree that Manning deserves some sort of punishment for what he did (10 years maximum would suffice) but it's hard not to come to the conclusion that this is a political decision, that Manning is being harshly treated for embarrassing the USA.
Somebody made the point that he was a traitor and should be severely dealt with. My points is that sometimes you have to look at the reasons why people become traitors. Sometimes, it's morally justified, other times it is not, hence the historical examples.
Except that Washington was part of a group of people who founded a new nation. If they had lost then that argument would have merit.
Robert E. Lee and Jeff Davis ceceeded from the US, also forming a "new nation" which was completely legal to do at the time.
The guy who blew up the Fast and Furious thing with the guns? Yeah, that was definitely moral, and a whistle blower situation. This kid? Not a fat chance in Hades.
We're getting slightly OT here, but as far as Lincoln was concerned, the confederacy was a civil insurrection and had no rights under international law. That was what the USA told Britain in order to dissuade her from aiding the south. I agree that winners like Washington make their own rules, but it doesn't change the fact that technically, they are traitorous scum!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: All this talk of a 120 year sentence is pretty damn excessive. You have people in wall street who caused the recession (arguably doing more damage to normal people) getting a slap off the wrist and probably walking into another well paid job.
I agree that Manning deserves some sort of punishment for what he did (10 years maximum would suffice) but it's hard not to come to the conclusion that this is a political decision, that Manning is being harshly treated for embarrassing the USA.
I suggest you look up the sentencing guidelines for the crimes he was convicted of. Nothing to do with politics, everything to do with what he is convicted of. Additionally, comparing the results of one trial to another (or a case that never went to trial) is of pretty limited worth. The judge in this case had nothing to do with Wall Street prosecutions or lack there of and her decision is based on the merits of the case brought against Manning, nothing else.
Back in the mid 90s I knew a guy who tried that to get out of a Korea assignment. When the commander told him 'nope, you going' he came back with polaroids which, in the words of the commander, were "graphic and convincing". He ended up not going to Korea and was a civilian pretty quickly.
We had one similar Except he claimed he was Bisexual to avoid deployment to Afghanistan. Commander called JAG who had to debate/look it up/laugh their arse off. JAG called back saying he can go because he still likes girls Then he refused to do his family care plan. 14 Yrs flushed
Back in the mid 90s I knew a guy who tried that to get out of a Korea assignment. When the commander told him 'nope, you going' he came back with polaroids which, in the words of the commander, were "graphic and convincing". He ended up not going to Korea and was a civilian pretty quickly.
We had one similar Except he claimed he was Bisexual to avoid deployment to Afghanistan. Commander called JAG who had to debate/look it up/laugh their arse off. JAG called back saying he can go because he still likes girls Then he refused to do his family care plan. 14 Yrs flushed
That's crazy... Afghanistan I can kind of see more then Korea, given the much greater risk of life and limb, but yeah, still crazy.
So he didn't like being in the military and struggled with his gender and sexuality, how is the indicative that he's lying about his motivations for leaking the information? He's been an open book on everything. The alternative perspective I hear being offered is essentially he's a self absorbed fringe dwelling character and the leaking was his only possible escape from the military. Somehow that seems like bs. The fact that he maintained the level of access to sensitive data even after his less than in the closeted struggle and his acting out says more about the military's utter incompetence than manning's apparent "fallacious motivations" for leaking.
There seems to be an assertion that all the struggles with his identity, gender and sexuality was some kind of klingeresque act to get out the military or that somehow if true those revelations makes him a lying deviant, it all just strikes me as ignorance. You can have issues with your gender and sexuality and take issue with your country's foreign policy, those two things aren't mutually exclusive.
Crablezworth wrote: So he didn't like being in the military and struggled with his gender and sexuality, how is the indicative that he's lying about his motivations for leaking the information? He's been an open book on everything. The alternative perspective I hear being offered is essentially he's a self absorbed fringe dwelling character and the leaking was his only possible escape from the military. Somehow that seems like bs. The fact that he maintained the level of access to sensitive data even after his less than in the closeted struggle and his acting out says more about the military's utter incompetence than manning's apparent "fallacious motivations" for leaking.
I believe it says more about how hungry we were for even bad intel guys, and our unwillingness to get raked over the coals for properly handling a feth-up like Manning by some liberal jackass with an agenda because he happened to be gay.
I believe it says more about how hungry we were for even bad intel guys, and our unwillingness to get raked over the coals for properly handling a feth-up like Manning by some liberal jackass with an agenda because he happened to be gay.
His chain of command, from front line supervisor to BN CDR all screwed up. He did enough that I would have yanked his local clearance and submitted enough derog to CCF that he lost it permanently and would have had to reclass WAY before they ever deployed. (And yes I have done that.)
It is always better to deploy one crap bag less than have to deal with a 'two soldier soldier" as one of my 1SGs used to call them (because it took a good soldier to constantly ride the crap bag just to get any real productivity from them). Weak leadership unwilling to do the right thing contributed to what happened. Having said that, it does NOT mitigate what convict Manning did. He alone is responsible for the choices he made and will get to think about that in the pen.
Crablezworth wrote: Or read between the lines of what is being heavily inferred.
I've inferred nothing. If you want to think I hate transgendered folks and will create malicious lies about them, go right ahead, but that's just your own prejudice talking at that point.
What I have noted was that when he went home on his mid-tour leave, he created a female persona, then when he returned to Iraq he tried using that to get booted. Hence my calling him a Klinger wanna-be.
Crablezworth wrote: Or read between the lines of what is being heavily inferred.
See that's what I thought, too, but if you look closely, he was replying directly to someone saying "is there any evidence that he was trying to get out of the military", which suggests that it was a list of evidence showing he was trying to get out, which is valid.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Manning may or may not be legitimately transgendered, but there is evidence that he was trying to get caught with it on purpose.
Crablezworth wrote: Or read between the lines of what is being heavily inferred.
I've inferred nothing. If you want to think I hate transgendered folks and will create malicious lies about them, go right ahead, but that's just your own prejudice talking at that point.
What I have noted was that when he went home on his mid-tour leave, he created a female persona, then when he returned to Iraq he tried using that to get booted. Hence my calling him a Klinger wanna-be.
I guess my question is why does being a klinger wanna-be call his motivations for leaking into question? You can have multiple reasons for any action. He had plenty of reasons to leak just like he had plenty of reasons to no want to be part of the military. One doesn't invalidate the other. Can you imagine being gay with gender issues and struggling with your county's motivations for going to war and it's practiced apathy towards said war all the while having a first hand unfiltered view of what's actually happening? I don't see these as seperate issues, one being used to cloak the other, I see it as one big picture.
Again, back to my main point, how is he not a reliable source on his own motivations? How many lies has he been caught telling? How many contradictions? Give me something here people.
Becuase it shows the depths he'd sink to in order to remove himself from a situation he found he didn't like.
If spending another year or two in the Army was enough he'd invent a transgender persona (allegedly fake), then how far would he go to avoid life in prison?
Where are the allegations he was faking the female persona?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Frankly, his motivation/intent was only important for the 'aiding the enemy' charge. His actions are what got him convicted on the others.
That's a fair point. His actions did have consequences.
Crablezworth wrote: Where are the allegations he was faking the female persona?
I'd say the fact that it didn't seem to exist until he was deployed, had a lot of trouble there, then went home on mid-tour leave, and started dressing up as a lady. He never provided any indication of being transgendered until after he was already in a load of gak with the Army. When this tactic didn't work, he stepped it up to the point of assualting a female soldier.
He had a progressive trend of trying more and more extreme tactics to be removed from the military, that is why I say he was faking it.
Jihadin wrote: couldn't even do "family care plan" way to get out...
What does this mean?
The Family Care Plan is something we have that ensures there is something in place for our dependants when we deploy/get injured/bite the big one. It's a required thing for many of us with a family, especially if your spouse is also in the military, disabled, or you just don't have a spouse.
Refusing to accomplish a family care plan can result in getting the axe, because the military cannot legally deploy you while your dependants are left uncared for.
Crablezworth wrote: Can you imagine being gay with gender issues and struggling with your county's motivations for going to war and it's practiced apathy towards said war all the while having a first hand unfiltered view of what's actually happening?
No, but then I actually bothered learning the basics about the military before even thinking about applying for OCS. There wasn't a gun to his head forcing him to enlist, unless you count the inability to hold a job.
Crablezworth wrote: Can you imagine being gay with gender issues and struggling with your county's motivations for going to war and it's practiced apathy towards said war all the while having a first hand unfiltered view of what's actually happening?
No, but then I actually bothered learning the basics about the military before even thinking about applying for OCS. There wasn't a gun to his head forcing him to enlist, unless you count the inability to hold a job.
Pretty sure that the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy has been around for longer than Pvt. Manning has been enlisted, also did Pvt Manning volunteer for service before or after military action begin in Afghanistan?
Crablezworth wrote: Can you imagine being gay with gender issues and struggling with your county's motivations for going to war and it's practiced apathy towards said war all the while having a first hand unfiltered view of what's actually happening?
No, but then I actually bothered learning the basics about the military before even thinking about applying for OCS. There wasn't a gun to his head forcing him to enlist, unless you count the inability to hold a job.
Pretty sure that the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy has been around for longer than Pvt. Manning has been enlisted, also did Pvt Manning volunteer for service before or after military action begin in Afghanistan?
Yes to both. None of this was a surprise for him. Being in Intel, he know what was going on over there long before he went.
djones520 wrote: Yes to both. None of this was a surprise for him. Being in Intel, he know what was going on over there long before he went.
That's what I thought but couldn't remember for sure. If he was struggling with his sexual identity, and disagreed with military action in Afghanistan then enlisting was probably not the best career path he could have chosen
DADT was a Bill Clinton era law. WAY before poor little Bradley enlisted. And he started basic for the second time in Jan of 2008, well after we had been at war.
Why did he start basic a second time? Because he almost got kicked out the first time. He was 'being bullied' and was sent to be discharged because he couldn't hang/couldn't get along, but instead got recycled (bet someone is kicking themselves now for that decision...). At that point instructors and the cadre had every incentive to graduate every one they could.
He should have been culled from the herd way before he had a chance to do damage.
CptJake wrote: Why did he start basic a second time? Because he almost got kicked out the first time. He was 'being bullied' and was sent to be discharged because he couldn't hang/couldn't get along, but instead got recycled (bet someone is kicking themselves now for that decision...). At that point instructors and the cadre had every incentive to graduate every one they could.
He should have been culled from the herd way before he had a chance to do damage.
I wonder if the people who recycled him, and then cleared him, have been asked what they were thinking yet?
CptJake wrote: DADT was a Bill Clinton era law. WAY before poor little Bradley enlisted. And he started basic for the second time in Jan of 2008, well after we had been at war.
Why did he start basic a second time? Because he almost got kicked out the first time. He was 'being bullied' and was sent to be discharged because he couldn't hang/couldn't get along, but instead got recycled (bet someone is kicking themselves now for that decision...). At that point instructors and the cadre had every incentive to graduate every one they could.
He should have been culled from the herd way before he had a chance to do damage.
Too bad we don't have retroactive NCOERs in the system for this sort of circumstance
See, as much as I'd like to say that you can't just get out of the military whenever you want to, we wouldn't have had any of this happen if they had gone ahead and booted him out when he started acting crazy, even if it was on purpose.
CptJake wrote: DADT was a Bill Clinton era law. WAY before poor little Bradley enlisted. And he started basic for the second time in Jan of 2008, well after we had been at war.
Why did he start basic a second time? Because he almost got kicked out the first time. He was 'being bullied' and was sent to be discharged because he couldn't hang/couldn't get along, but instead got recycled (bet someone is kicking themselves now for that decision...). At that point instructors and the cadre had every incentive to graduate every one they could.
He should have been culled from the herd way before he had a chance to do damage.
What in your opinion were some or all of the major ramifications of manning's leaking to wikileaks?
The "major ramifications" are not relevant.
What is relevant is that his motives for leaking said material completely nullify any protection he would have as a "whistleblower".
Kanluwen wrote: The "major ramifications" are not relevant.
What is relevant is that his motives for leaking said material completely nullify any protection he would have as a "whistleblower".
They are relevant now.
Both sides get to argue what ramifications and damages there were, if any, and what his motivations were to see what mitigating effects it will have on his sentence, if any.
As far as I know the damages and motivations don't have any bearing on him being guilty or not, but they do have a bearing on what sentence he will receive.
No its not. He is not being "charged" for what he released. He is being charged by Articles of everything he did before he release the intell. Why they didn't stick aiding and abetting the Enemy. Welcome to UCMJ.
CptJake wrote: DADT was a Bill Clinton era law. WAY before poor little Bradley enlisted. And he started basic for the second time in Jan of 2008, well after we had been at war.
Why did he start basic a second time? Because he almost got kicked out the first time. He was 'being bullied' and was sent to be discharged because he couldn't hang/couldn't get along, but instead got recycled (bet someone is kicking themselves now for that decision...). At that point instructors and the cadre had every incentive to graduate every one they could.
He should have been culled from the herd way before he had a chance to do damage.
What in your opinion were some or all of the major ramifications of manning's leaking to wikileaks?
Just some:
Allied intel services and diplomatic entities a lot less likely to share their take, let alone any sources with us because they don't trust us to secure their info/sources. That is a big one.
Individuals we try to recruit as sources in places like Yemen and Afghanistan (and many others) will be more reluctant to work with us, again fearing their identities get leaked and they or their families get capped.
Some specific individuals did get identities leaked. Even if they are/were not harmed, they are no longer sources.
I go into a lot more by addressing some specific info leaked, but it really wouldn't add anything of value to the topic.
Can someone explain this case to me, it seems like a guy who releashed info on the military doing bad things?
But im seeing alot of anger here about it.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Can someone explain this case to me, it seems like a guy who releashed info on the military doing bad things?
But im seeing alot of anger here about it.
He stole thousands of classified documents (most not even military but instead Department of State) and passed them to an organization he knew would post them on the web. You would have a very hard case to show what he stole was relevant to 'the military doing bad things', though some items like the Apache gun video were manipulated to appear so.
And most of the people who think he "did the right thing" refuse to see that he did not actually "do the right thing" for the "right reasons"(which is more or less what a "whistleblower" does), but rather because he was trying to get out of what he signed up for and frustrated with the fact that he was unable to do so.
In any other job doing something like what Manning did would get you blackballed almost instantly and have your employers pressing charges. But because Manning has WikiLeaks and the people who honestly believed that "Collateral Murder" was in fact depicting "murder" behind him, it has become a highly polarizing case.
He did the ultimate sin in the military. He put us in more danger then needed to be. He did the Royal Major Blue Falcon on us. You didn't think that Apache video didn't get a few more "fighters", some more "Financers", and some more converts. to the cause?
I'm sorry but I'm still not understanding how wanting out of the military is mutually exclusive with taking issue with america's foreign policy and what was actually occuring over there. How can it not be both? I'm still not seeing that. I can dislike indian food for it not smelling good and it being spicy, the existance of a second reason for disliking it shouldn't call the first reason into question.
Crablezworth wrote: I'm sorry but I'm still not understanding how wanting out of the military is mutually exclusive with taking issue with america's foreign policy and what was actually occuring over there. How can it not be both? I'm still not seeing that. I can dislike indian food for it not smelling good and it being spicy, the existance of a second reason for disliking it shouldn't call the first reason into question.
Because your willfully ignoring all of the facts that have been presented.
A clear trend of escalating tactics to get himself removed from the military has been established, when they all failed, he went to the one fool proof tactic. You want to get snookered in by his little statement, go ahead. Can we stop discussing it now?
Crablezworth wrote: I'm sorry but I'm still not understanding how wanting out of the military is mutually exclusive with taking issue with america's foreign policy and what was actually occuring over there. How can it not be both? I'm still not seeing that. I can dislike indian food for it not smelling good and it being spicy, the existance of a second reason for disliking it shouldn't call the first reason into question.
Because your willfully ignoring all of the facts that have been presented.
A clear trend of escalating tactics to get himself removed from the military has been established, when they all failed, he went to the one fool proof tactic. You want to get snookered in by his little statement, go ahead. Can we stop discussing it now?
What am I ignoring? One can be motivated by multiple things, another nail in the coffin doesn't pull the first one out. He didn't like being in the military and after seeing what he saw he really didn't like being in the military and because of what he saw felt compelled to blow the whistle and let the american public and the world see for itself.
Crablezworth wrote: I'm sorry but I'm still not understanding how wanting out of the military is mutually exclusive with taking issue with america's foreign policy and what was actually occuring over there. How can it not be both? I'm still not seeing that. I can dislike indian food for it not smelling good and it being spicy, the existance of a second reason for disliking it shouldn't call the first reason into question.
If you're not understanding, it is because you simply do not want to.
To pretend as though the "Collateral Murder" video which put Manning on the map was anything but WikiLeaks releasing footage cut to completely remove context and be as accusatory as possible is ridiculous. Even just simply looking at the Wikipedia article on it shows that the Apache crew were entirely justified in engaging like they did.
I'm not understanding how wanting out of the military prior to being exposed to the information he leaked detracts credibility from manning's claim of intent on releasing said information. How does having multiple reasons for something call either reason into question?
I'm not understanding how wanting out of the military prior to being exposed to the information he leaked detracts credibility from manning's claim of intent on releasing said information. How does having multiple reasons for something call either reason into question?
Then you are simply refusing to actually look at the case.
Here, I'll support my argument that he did have a reason for leaking beyond getting himself out of the military:
"I felt that we were risking so much for people that seemed unwilling to cooperate with us, leading to frustration and anger on both sides. I began to become depressed with the situation that we found ourselves increasingly mired in year after year. The SigActs documented this in great detail and provide a context of what we were seeing on the ground.
In attempting to conduct counter-terrorism or CT and counter-insurgency COIN operations we became obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists… ignoring the second and third order effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions.
I believed that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the [Iraq and Afghan War Logs] this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as well as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan."
- Bradly Manning
Now here's the part where you try and support the assertion that all of that has no part to play in his motivation for leaking. Good luck.
"I felt that we were risking so much for people that seemed unwilling to cooperate with us, leading to frustration and anger on both sides. I began to become depressed with the situation that we found ourselves increasingly mired in year after year. The SigActs documented this in great detail and provide a context of what we were seeing on the ground.
In attempting to conduct counter-terrorism or CT and counter-insurgency COIN operations we became obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists… ignoring the second and third order effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions.
I believed that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the [Iraq and Afghan War Logs] this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as well as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan."
- Bradly Manning
When did he make the statement? What's the date of the statement?
As an NCO I tell you now. He was not thinking of this when he did it. He vented and wanted to get back at the US Military who he felt was unfair to him. You choose to ignore his action before he dropped the intell on Wikileaks. You never been a experience Supervisor have you?
edit 2
Still that was damn good coaching from his Lawyers
Here, I'll support my argument that he did have a reason for leaking beyond getting himself out of the military:
"I felt that we were risking so much for people that seemed unwilling to cooperate with us, leading to frustration and anger on both sides. I began to become depressed with the situation that we found ourselves increasingly mired in year after year. The SigActs documented this in great detail and provide a context of what we were seeing on the ground.
In attempting to conduct counter-terrorism or CT and counter-insurgency COIN operations we became obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists… ignoring the second and third order effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions.
I believed that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the [Iraq and Afghan War Logs] this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as well as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan."
- Bradly Manning
Now here's the part where you try and support the assertion that all of that has no part to play in his motivation for leaking. Good luck.
Because he's clearly telling the truth, right?
That is what your entire argument hinges upon. That he was being absolutely truthful in making that statement and not using it as a justification for his actions after the fact.
He would not be a "whistleblower" if his actions were done solely for the purpose of obtaining redress against the United States armed forces.
Here, I'll support my argument that he did have a reason for leaking beyond getting himself out of the military:
"I felt that we were risking so much for people that seemed unwilling to cooperate with us, leading to frustration and anger on both sides. I began to become depressed with the situation that we found ourselves increasingly mired in year after year. The SigActs documented this in great detail and provide a context of what we were seeing on the ground.
In attempting to conduct counter-terrorism or CT and counter-insurgency COIN operations we became obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists… ignoring the second and third order effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions.
I believed that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the [Iraq and Afghan War Logs] this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as well as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan."
- Bradly Manning
Now here's the part where you try and support the assertion that all of that has no part to play in his motivation for leaking. Good luck.
Because he's clearly telling the truth, right?
That is what your entire argument hinges upon.
And your argument that he was making a false statement hinges on...?
Has the prosecution independantly verified through credible sources that he's indeed lying about his motivations? Has he made any attempt to deny his actions? Has he not plead guilty to most charges?
Why did he plead guilty to most charges and have aiding and abetting the enemy not stick. Welcome to UCMJ. One charge dismiss while the rest of the charges equal that one charge. Except that one charge carried the Death Penalty I do believe. Also why did he refuse to judged by his "Peers" if he was so "righteous"
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.
Again....Welcome to UCMJ
edit 2
Gut CHeck Crab...as in an Integerty Check....are you on a anti US tirade? Better yet playing Devil Advocate or truly not understand the US Military atmosphere
edit 3
Rereading it I do not mean to make it sound harsh. I'm just trying to see your angle
Because what he did was wrong D-USA. I can forgive a lot from "disgruntled" troops as long as they meet me halfway. I even over look some "incidents" if its kept between us as long as I think you/they are "recoverable". The one thing I will never ever forgive. Putting another soldier in Harms Way due to your "stupidity". Every soldier..Marines...Navy...and Air Force knows this. Never Ever put another at risk due to your action. Manning did not think about that nor cross his mind that he might be getting/have soldier/Marines killed/wounded due to his action
Jihadin wrote: Because what he did was wrong D-USA. I can forgive a lot from "disgruntled" troops as long as they meet me halfway. I even over look some "incidents" if its kept between us as long as I think you/they are "recoverable". The one thing I will never ever forgive. Putting another soldier in Harms Way due to your "stupidity". Every soldier..Marines...Navy...and Air Force knows this. Never Ever put another at risk due to your action. Manning did not think about that nor cross his mind that he might be getting/have soldier/Marines killed/wounded due to his action
I'm not talking about what he did, or if it was right or wrong.
But look, you want him dead. Many in this thread want him dead. Why on earth would he willingly put himself in the hands of people who want to see him dead?
He, or his lawyers, were smart enough to put himself in the hands of somebody who is more academic than that. It was a valid legal tactic.
Jihadin wrote: Because what he did was wrong D-USA. I can forgive a lot from "disgruntled" troops as long as they meet me halfway. I even over look some "incidents" if its kept between us as long as I think you/they are "recoverable". The one thing I will never ever forgive. Putting another soldier in Harms Way due to your "stupidity". Every soldier..Marines...Navy...and Air Force knows this. Never Ever put another at risk due to your action. Manning did not think about that nor cross his mind that he might be getting/have soldier/Marines killed/wounded due to his action
What specific revelations from the leak do you feel were most damaging in terms of endangering servicemen?
I agree D-USA. I mention earlier it was the best choice his Lawyers did....the one post with the Matrix of red and blue pill. Either pill though he was going to get "toasted". Him agreeing to all the charges but one (bad sentence structure I know) he removed the Death Option. The Federal Government is not seeking the death penalty on Snowden unlike Manning where the Judge (A Military Officer) within limits of UCMJ can still have him executed. Even though its in the UCMJ where he can still be executed its not going to happen. Same as Hasan. Even if the Judge says "Hang him/Shoot him verdict" its going to get over turned by Appeal. Executing one of our own is not proper form in today's military. Sounds double standard but I rather have him suffer knowing what he did then having a easy "opt out".
Because his peers as same as me. Will never forgive someone who intended/unintended put a fellow service member in danger. Its like putting your spouse in danger.
There's another thing. What's the difference between Manning and Maj. Hasan. I posted a thread earlier about Hasan and it did not last barely...maybe two pages. Manning though I can get maybe 4-5 pages. Hasan went active and killed soldiers due to influence from Awalakimanut. Manning dumped a crapload of intell due to venting out and getting "revenge" and the Apache video was the "gem" of the mother load. Let me ponder this....
Crab...why would I answer your question when I ask you a specific question earlier. Also what's the one thing I do not forgive while in service? I also mention a "video" in relation to the one thing I do not forgive. Go over the my post again pls.
I did my recovery at Ft Meade. I was so happy they were going to let me finish out my recovery process at Ft Lewis WA. Would you believe all three parties....US Army, LEO PD's and the protesters agree to keep Dunkin Donuts neutral ground at the main gate. As in leave politics off the property while your getting coffee and donuts then go back across the street to start back up protesting, guard and keeping the protesters in line.
Even if the death penalty was still on the table, when was the last military execution? How many people are on death row now and how long have they been there?
Even if the death penalty was still on the table, when was the last military execution? How many people are on death row now and how long have they been there?
Two different legal system here
Capital cases are tried in courts-martial before a panel of at least twelve military members. If the defendant is an enlisted servicemember, they may opt for at least one third of the panel to also be of enlisted rank. All members of the panel must outrank the accused. The defendant cannot plead guilty to the charges. The panel must be unanimous in conviction, that the government has proven necessary aggravating factors, that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors, and that death is the only sentence applicable. All death sentences are automatically appealed first to the Court of Criminal Appeals for the military service concerned, then to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The sentence must be personally confirmed by the President of the United States.
Time between sentencing and execution 2-4 years.
Again....welcome to UCMJ
edit we have one on the board
On July 28, 2008, President George W. Bush approved the execution of United States Army Private Ronald A. Gray, who had been convicted in April 1988 of multiple murders and rapes. A month later, Secretary of the Army Pete Geren set an execution date of December 10, 2008 and ordered that Gray be put to death by lethal injection at the Federal Correctional Complex, Terre Haute. The military publicly released Gray's execution date on November 20, 2008. On November 26, however, Gray was granted a stay of execution by federal judge Rogers. He has not yet been executed as of 2012.[3]
Even if the death penalty was still on the table, when was the last military execution? How many people are on death row now and how long have they been there?
Two different legal system here
Capital cases are tried in courts-martial before a panel of at least twelve military members. If the defendant is an enlisted servicemember, they may opt for at least one third of the panel to also be of enlisted rank. All members of the panel must outrank the accused. The defendant cannot plead guilty to the charges. The panel must be unanimous in conviction, that the government has proven necessary aggravating factors, that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors, and that death is the only sentence applicable. All death sentences are automatically appealed first to the Court of Criminal Appeals for the military service concerned, then to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The sentence must be personally confirmed by the President of the United States.
The sentence must be personally confirmed by the President of the United States.
Like I said. We have one on Death Row. The others are waiting confirmation by the US President. Again....welcome to UCMJ
Keep on moving the goal posts then.
Your statement was:
Time between sentencing and execution 2-4 years.
So far time between sentencing is up to 25 years and counting.
If you want to change it to "time between sentence being confirmed by the POTUS and execution..." then you are still looking at 5 years and counting instead of your 2-4 year statement.
The sentence must be personally confirmed by the President of the United States.
Crab I'm done with you. Your either unwilling, cannot comprehend, or ignoring the facts of Manning.
Ignoring the facts in what regard? He's been found guilty of most charges and is likely facing many years in prison for his actions, I feel his intentions were good and I think the guy's a hero, that sadly won't change the years he's likely going to stay behind bars. As many have pointed out his motivations don't really matter anymore, he's not guilty of aiding the enemy but he has been found guilty on everything else.
Capital cases are tried in courts-martial before a panel of at least twelve military members. If the defendant is an enlisted servicemember, they may opt for at least one third of the panel to also be of enlisted rank. All members of the panel must outrank the accused. The defendant cannot plead guilty to the charges. The panel must be unanimous in conviction, that the government has proven necessary aggravating factors, that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors, and that death is the only sentence applicable. All death sentences are automatically appealed first to the Court of Criminal Appeals for the military service concerned, then to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The sentence must be personally confirmed by the President of the United States.
Let me guess D-USA...you didn't read this did you but assume or something? Didn't even get close to moving the goal post. Again Welcome to UCMJ. Your mixing it up with regular Federal Laws that would apply to Snowden
Bernard J. O'Brien 19 June 1952 31 July 1954 Premeditated murder
Chastine Beverly 10 October 1951 1 March 1955 Robbery, premeditated murder
Louis M. Suttles 10 October 1951 1 March 1955 Robbery, premeditated murder
James L. Riggins 10 October 1951 1 March 1955 Robbery, premeditated murder
Thomas J. Edwards 1 April 1953 14 February 1957 Premeditated murder
Winfred D. Moore 19 August 1953 14 February 1957 Murder, assault with intent to commit robbery
Ernest L. Ranson 5 June 1953 3 April 1957 Lifting weapon against superior officer, premeditated murder, rape, robbery, 2 counts of assault with dangerous weapon
Abraham Thomas 15 April 1954 23 July 1958 Four counts premeditated murder
John E. Day, Jr. 1 October 1951 23 September 1959 Murder, premeditated assault with attempt to do bodily harm with dangerous weapon, assault
John A. Bennett 8 February 1955 13 April 1961 Rape, premeditated attempted murder
2-4 yrs......in bold....these were after the President confirmed the execution orders. Again welcome to UCMJ. This is not regular Federal Laws its Uniform Military Code of Justice.
edit 2
Like CAPTJake said since I lived under UCMJ I do not understand UCMJ then those who do not must be the legal expert on UCMJ
So you are confusing how things were done 60 years ago with today.
5 guys have been sentenced to death by the military.
1 guy has that sentence approved by the President.
None of them have been executed within 2-4 years of sentencing, as you claimed it would be in your post.
I am posting links to the military system, so I am fairly certain that I am talking about military death row.
You said 2-4 years from sentencing (not presidential confirmation) to execution.
You were wrong, and even the sole guy that has bad a presidential confirmation of his sentence is pushing 5 years since confirmation instead of 2-4.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let me make this simple.
Your statement was "sentencing to execution: 2-4 years".
So:
1) Who was the last guy to be sentenced
2) What year was he sentenced
3) How many years has it been since he was sentenced
4) Are those years less or more than 2-4
djones520 wrote: This is the military, not Wall Street. He took an oath, bound by law. He signed contracts.
A higher standard was expected of him. As such he will be and should be treated that way.
6 pages in, and nobody has quoted everybody's favourite law - I'm very disappointed!
There was a guy with an eyepatch who tried to blow up a madman with a moustache in 1944. The eyepatch guy had taken an oath to serve the moustached man, so technically, the eyepatch guy broke the trust placed in him/betrayed the oath, but who in their right mind wouldn't say the eyepatch guy done the right thing?
As always, oaths of allegiance have to be taken in a moral context.
Then you probably wouldn't be fond of my position that we ought to shoot him.
No!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: No its not. He is not being "charged" for what he released. He is being charged by Articles of everything he did before he release the intell. Why they didn't stick aiding and abetting the Enemy. Welcome to UCMJ.
UCMJ be damned! Her Britannic majesty's naval code is the only law I recognise!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Can someone explain this case to me, it seems like a guy who releashed info on the military doing bad things?
But im seeing alot of anger here about it.
I'm perfectly calm, no anger here
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: And most of the people who think he "did the right thing" refuse to see that he did not actually "do the right thing" for the "right reasons"(which is more or less what a "whistleblower" does), but rather because he was trying to get out of what he signed up for and frustrated with the fact that he was unable to do so.
In any other job doing something like what Manning did would get you blackballed almost instantly and have your employers pressing charges. But because Manning has WikiLeaks and the people who honestly believed that "Collateral Murder" was in fact depicting "murder" behind him, it has become a highly polarizing case.
Agreed, but 150+ years is way over the top. 10 years and a trip to Texas would suffice!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: He did the ultimate sin in the military. He put us in more danger then needed to be. He did the Royal Major Blue Falcon on us. You didn't think that Apache video didn't get a few more "fighters", some more "Financers", and some more converts. to the cause?
I think US foreign policy for the last 10 years took care of that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This case was dangerously close to having the NY times classified as an 'enemy.' Regardless of your views on the times, that was a pretty dangerous precedent.
From what I've read, Manning is the first non 'spy' to be found guilty of spying. Future whistle blowers are less likely to blow the whistle. Obama, where did it all go wrong?
CptJake wrote: The NY Time was close to being labeled an 'enemy'?
You must have been following a completely different case than I was, and I followed the Manning case pretty closely.
Not for the first time, I'm confused! There are that many whistleblowers these days, that it's hard to keep track, hence why I'm getting my wires crossed!
hotsauceman1 wrote: From the grainy video how are they able to tell that is a camera?
There's a camera. Which is irrelevant, because there are also weapons.
which is what I'm saying, You can go over the video many times, like when they zoomed in and showed grainy video of the two kids.
They had a luxury the pilots didnt, which is to go over the video numerous times an pick out details. I dont fly but I doubt pilots could see those kids when they had to zoom in to show it on the video.
And why where war Photographers hanging outs with dudes with weapons?
hotsauceman1 wrote: From the grainy video how are they able to tell that is a camera?
There's a camera. Which is irrelevant, because there are also weapons.
which is what I'm saying, You can go over the video many times, like when they zoomed in and showed grainy video of the two kids.
They had a luxury the pilots didnt, which is to go over the video numerous times an pick out details. I dont fly but I doubt pilots could see those kids when they had to zoom in to show it on the video.
And why where war Photographers hanging outs with dudes with weapons?
The most probable reason is to make recruitment videos.
The other part of the luxury they had is they were not actively flying a rotary wing aircraft in a combat zone while viewing the video. I suspect between safely keeping the aircraft in the sky, scanning for threats, monitoring several radio nets, staying in the piece of sky they were allocated and so on makes the viewing in real time a bit different than sitting on your couch with a lap top and a pause button.
hotsauceman1 wrote: From the grainy video how are they able to tell that is a camera?
There's a camera. Which is irrelevant, because there are also weapons.
which is what I'm saying, You can go over the video many times, like when they zoomed in and showed grainy video of the two kids.
They had a luxury the pilots didnt, which is to go over the video numerous times an pick out details. I dont fly but I doubt pilots could see those kids when they had to zoom in to show it on the video.
And why where war Photographers hanging outs with dudes with weapons?
The most probable reason is to make recruitment videos.
That is a big part of it (they are also used for AARs) but if you watch (at least in the unedited version) you can see the camera dude, after popping up around the corner to take pictures of the US ground unit, show the pictures he took to the insurgents he is with. That can easily be understood as an indicator of tactical reconnaissance (hey guys, look, there is an armed hummer with x troops 2 blocks away, this is how they are arrayed and where they are focused).
Again, it was a legit engagement. The 15-6 investigations (even the redacted versions you can find on the web) actually show the last few pictures taken by the camera they recovered. It does show what I described above.
Again D-USA. Welcome to UCMJ. . Even if they're on "Death Row" awaiting final confirmation of execution by the PoTUS is completion of the sentencing. . Bush gave to confirmation to have someone executed but a federal judge blocked it citing the individual haven't exhausted his appeals yet. Yet its confirmed he is to die in the future till all his appeals are exhausted. Like I said before. You have to understand UCMJ which it seems your unwilling to nor seeing. Because your comparing federal/state laws to it also the fact your drawing it off by throwing in "length of stay before execution" by those individuals that were confirmed in court of law their sentence to those awaiting confirmation by the POTUS.. You work in a VA center/retirement home. Get clarification from a retired JAG lawyer there. I do seriously think a face to face discussion on "Death Penalty" with a JAG lawyer will help clear up what your missing.
Jihadin wrote: Again D-USA. Welcome to UCMJ. . Even if they're on "Death Row" awaiting final confirmation of execution by the PoTUS is completion of the sentencing. . Bush gave to confirmation to have someone executed but a federal judge blocked it citing the individual haven't exhausted his appeals yet. Yet its confirmed he is to die in the future till all his appeals are exhausted. Like I said before. You have to understand UCMJ which it seems your unwilling to nor seeing. Because your comparing federal/state laws to it also the fact your drawing it off by throwing in "length of stay before execution" by those individuals that were confirmed in court of law their sentence to those awaiting confirmation by the POTUS.. You work in a VA center/retirement home. Get clarification from a retired JAG lawyer there. I do seriously think a face to face discussion on "Death Penalty" with a JAG lawyer will help clear up what your missing.
1) when was the last guy sentenced?
2) when has he been executed?
3) did it take 2-4 years as you claim?
A Ralph Peters editorial that makes some of the points I tried to bring up about leadership failures.
On a side note, Peters' novel 'Red Army' is one of the best WWIII novels out there. Well worth getting it from your library or buying a used copy from Amazon or someplace. I like all his books, the fiction and the non-fiction but this has always been my favorite.
On another note, he gave my class a lecture when he was still on active duty (as a Major) when I was a CPT going through the MI Transition course (where they attempted to turn us combat arms types into intel types before joining us with the MI pure types in what is now called the Captains Career Course.
New York Post
July 31, 2013
Pg. 25
Manning’s Enablers
The US Army — and our schools
By Ralph Peters
Yesterday, military judge Col. Denise Lind found Wikileaker Pfc. Bradley Manning guilty on five counts of espionage, as well as multiple counts of theft, computer fraud and military infractions. Giving Manning every benefit of the doubt, the judge found him not guilty of the charge of intentionally aiding the enemy — but still convicted him on 19 of 21 counts.
Now begins the separate sentencing phase of Manning’s military trial. But the long “guilty” list ensures he’ll spend decades in a military prison.
Yet two “unindicted co-conspirators” were missing in the dock throughout the trial. Not Julian Assange and his Wiki-gnomes, but the US Army and our blame-America culture.
Consider the guilt of the Army and Military Intelligence. Six weeks into basic training, Manning was tapped to be discharged as unsuitable. But the Army, hungry for even the worst cuts of meat, not only canceled the discharge move, but sent him to its Intelligence Center and School, granting him a Top Secret/Special Compartmentalized Information (TS/SCI) clearance.
Initially stationed at Ft. Drum, NY, Manning was referred for mental-health counseling. But he kept that sensitive clearance. Then he was sent to Iraq, where his behavior was erratic and provocative, but he continued to have access to high-level intelligence until he threw a destructive office tantrum and had to be restrained.
Eventually, he was demoted one grade and, finally, sent to work in a supply room. But the damage was already done: a vast dump of confidential and secret US government documents.
Extreme political correctness and the Army’s insatiable appetite for troops with top clearances had combined to enable the largest leak of classified information in our history.
Prior to 9/11, a soldier could lose his or her clearance over a minor infraction and access to Special Compartmentalized Information was granted on a strict “need to know” basis. To lose access today, you have to hand over 700,000 classified documents to WikiLeaks or give the Chinese and Russians the NSA’s gravest secrets.
Back when I served in Military Intelligence, Manning never would’ve gotten a clearance in the first place — warning flags were everywhere. Same thing with Edward Snowden: He never should have gotten a clearance of any kind.
But serious vetting ended with 9/11: Today, it’s just a meat market.
None of this excuses Manning’s betrayal of his country. But the Army and the intelligence community need to do some soul-searching.
The other enabler that helped make Manning the disaster he became is our patriotism-trashing, dumb-it-way-down culture.
Want to find the root of the reflexive anti-Americanism and irresponsibility that propelled Manning, Snowden and others to betray their country? Start with the removal of serious history study from our classrooms.
What are kids taught about our country now? They learn about our “collective guilt” for slavery — but not about the hundreds of thousands of Americans who died ending it. They learn about the “crime” of dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki — but not about the Bataan Death March. Guadalcanal? The Bulge? Nah. But they learn about the internment of Japanese-Americans — a regrettable mistake, but not the Holocaust.
In short, kids are programmed to feel ashamed of the United States of America. Young men such as Manning (who, yes, also attended school in peevishly anti-American Wales for several years) or Snowden make fateful decisions in a mental and moral near-vacuum littered with anti-American garbage.
And think of all the Hollywood films, television series and talk shows preaching endlessly that the real bad guys are the Feds (or the US Marines — thanks, James Cameron).
Undoubtedly, Manning and Snowden are troubled souls. But they’re also narcissistic, dishonest and malicious. The fact that each has defenders only validates the points made above: In pop culture and the classroom, America’s a menace.
It’s a shame that Col. Lind, the judge, couldn’t render a much broader verdict.
Ralph Peters is a former US Army Military Intelligence enlisted man and officer.
d-usa wrote: Article makes good points about the failure of the army to get rid of him.
Then it becomes poor garbage talking about the failure of not teaching kids to love this country enough.
No, it discusses actively teaching kids to think the country is bad. Big difference. A balanced and historically correct approach would be much better than the drivel being taught (and which is mentioned in the article).
d-usa wrote: Article makes good points about the failure of the army to get rid of him.
Then it becomes poor garbage talking about the failure of not teaching kids to love this country enough.
No, it discusses actively teaching kids to think the country is bad. Big difference. A balanced and historically correct approach would be much better than the drivel being taught (and which is mentioned in the article).
There is a vast difference between teaching kids that this country did some bad things, and that it is a bad country.
And saying "we did bad things, but others did them too and some did them worse" does not make them any less bad nor does it make the country any better.
You can be a patriot and love this country while admitting that it did some fethed up things as well and still does bad things today.
d-usa wrote: Article makes good points about the failure of the army to get rid of him.
Then it becomes poor garbage talking about the failure of not teaching kids to love this country enough.
No, it discusses actively teaching kids to think the country is bad. Big difference. A balanced and historically correct approach would be much better than the drivel being taught (and which is mentioned in the article).
There is a vast difference between teaching kids that this country did some bad things, and that it is a bad country.
And saying "we did bad things, but others did them too and some did them worse" does not make them any less bad nor does it make the country any better.
You can be a patriot and love this country while admitting that it did some fethed up things as well and still does bad things today.
Agreed, there is eduction and there is indoctrination.
In Ralph Peters's little world if the firebombing of Dresden doesn't give you a hard on for America you're not a patriot or something. Asking questions and finding answers should be part of an individual’s education, understandably for the military to function as it should there is indoctrination involved. For a military to work you can’t have everyone questioning orders, that’s understandable so I can forgive Mr. Peters a bit but he has to understand a public school isn’t a fething barracks. Education and indoctrination are two very different things and asking the occasional question can be an incredibly patriottic thing to do.
Crablezworth wrote: In Ralph Peters's little world if the firebombing of Dresden doesn't give you a hard on for America you're not a patriot or something. Asking questions and finding answers should be part of an individual’s education, understandably for the military to function as it should there is indoctrination involved. For a military to work you can’t have everyone questioning orders, that’s understandable so I can forgive Mr. Peters a bit but he has to understand a public school isn’t a fething barracks. Education and indoctrination are two very different things and asking the occasional question can be an incredibly patriottic thing to do.
I'm sure Dresden was an RAF mission, but I agree with the sentiment of your comment.
It was raf and usaaf, but yeah, I never like the rose colored glass view of WW2, it was a terrible time to be alive for most of the planet and total war is a race to the bottom for all sides involved.
The gaf about James Cameron is dumb too, his most recent hero was a U.S. Marine, and his brother (who Cameron idolizes) is a Marine NCO. Avatar slammed PMCs, which I would say isn't a bad thing looking at the track records of many merc companies in the world.
What are kids taught about our country now? They learn about our “collective guilt” for slavery — but not about the hundreds of thousands of Americans who died ending it. They learn about the “crime” of dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki — but not about the Bataan Death March. Guadalcanal? The Bulge? Nah. But they learn about the internment of Japanese-Americans — a regrettable mistake, but not the Holocaust.
In short, kids are programmed to feel ashamed of the United States of America. Young men such as Manning (who, yes, also attended school in peevishly anti-American Wales for several years) or Snowden make fateful decisions in a mental and moral near-vacuum littered with anti-American garbage.
I laughed so hard. Then again its Military History so why would they teach it in school. Pretty sure hardly no one knew what the "Bulge" was till Band of Brother. I'm sure no one remembers the main reason why two "bombs" were dropped on Japan. How fanatical they were to defend Okinawa which equate times five invasion of the home soil. The "Canal was the first major step in the Pacific to take the War to Japan. Kennedy PT109, "Tokyo Express", The "Pacific", Flag raising on Mount Suribachi on Iwo Jima....How many actually watch Flags of our Fathers or Letter to Home. That's off the top of my head. Though I'm in an environment that teaches that. Though I do remember being told why the Bomb was dropped on Japan to end WWII in school. I also remember why the "fear" to place Japanese Americans into camps. Mainly due to the US dealing with mix loyalty to the Emperor and the US. Also the fact the surprise attack of Pearl Harbor shocked everyone which wouldn't have been much of a surprise if their Embassy Ambassador to the US delivered the papers to the Government declaring a "state of hostility" existed. Hey I remember that as a bonus question on a high school test. Before anyone jumps the gun and rail at me for Japanese Americans I say look up 442nd and the main reason why they fought in Europe.
Then though patriotism back then is not ingrained as it is now. The Pledge of Allegiance is viewed as a bad thing now, Star Spangle Banner is viewed as a bad thing now. So what is today's version on what a true American is. I have my perception and sticking to it.
I attended High School, and have helped teach in them, and I know teachers, but never have I seen or heard of anyone teaching 'our collective guilt for slavery'. I also don't know of any High School curriculum that doesn't mention the Holocaust during the WWII section. The whole thing is pure fantasy.
I've a feeling the "Holocaust" isn't discuss in length just a brush over. My last GF son in High School I browsed his History Book. (way before I got married to my current/only love of my life....who's right beside me..) It was like...well....a red Crayola was broking out. US History Book...same book...just had start and end dates, major participants, major incidents, focus points, and pretty much in my opinion brushed over. Though I went to high school 85-89. My English class I learned to hate Romeo and Juliet......Shakespear bio....I hated that white bearded SoB.....Grapes of Wrath book, and Little Red Poney and the movie of it with Robert Mitchem....and the WOODEN PADDLE...with holes drilled in it to better grip the butt. My history class teacher was a Vietnam Vet who died in 01 and yes I had quite a few beers with him at the VFW after I joined. He was the only interested in what it was like in Somalia and was madder then Hell at Aspen for denying armor PC to the US troops there. This guy was a protester to so it was funny when he showed me pics of him in his "hippy" days with a airborne tattoo The current cycle of teachers now have actually lived a ordinary plain life style.
edit 2
About the only thing I can think of that effected everyone is the gas prices after Katrina
Ahtman wrote: I attended High School, and have helped teach in them, and I know teachers, but never have I seen or heard of anyone teaching 'our collective guilt for slavery'. I also don't know of any High School curriculum that doesn't mention the Holocaust during the WWII section. The whole thing is pure fantasy.
Try attending school in a pre-dominately black area ( I did ).
There were plenty of the whole 'collective guilt for slavery' going on.
The Holocaust doesn't receive near the depth it probably deserves. I mean the number you get in school when I went to high school is six million, but that's JUST the Jews. It doesn't account for up to 11 million total "undesirables" and up to 26 million Russian civilians.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The Holocaust doesn't receive near the depth it probably deserves. I mean the number you get in school when I went to high school is six million, but that's JUST the Jews. It doesn't account for up to 11 million total "undesirables" and up to 26 million Russian civilians.
It's only in recent years with the fall of the wall, that the Russian contribution is being acknowledge. A similar undertaking is going on in Britain with historical revisionism having a long hard look at some of Britain's WW2 myths.
Anyway, back OT. I don't know why Wales and the Welsh people are getting in the neck because Manning attended school there for a bit. Normally, I'm the first to blame the Welsh for most things
But to say that Wales is a hotbed of Anti-Americanism is plain silly. Most people in Wales don't even know where America is!
KalashnikovMarine wrote:The Holocaust doesn't receive near the depth it probably deserves.
It is High School, nothing really gets the depth it deserves almost by definition; it is a survey of information on a subject; if you want specialty that is what college is for, or outside reading.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I don't know why Wales and the Welsh people are getting in the neck because Manning attended school there for a bit. Normally, I'm the first to blame the Welsh for most things
But to say that Wales is a hotbed of Anti-Americanism is plain silly. Most people in Wales don't even know where America is!
It isn't in America, therefor it is anti-American.
Anyway, back OT. I don't know why Wales and the Welsh people are getting in the neck because Manning attended school there for a bit. Normally, I'm the first to blame the Welsh for most things
But to say that Wales is a hotbed of Anti-Americanism is plain silly. Most people in Wales don't even know where America is!
From what I understand, most Welsh don't know where England is.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:The Holocaust doesn't receive near the depth it probably deserves.
It is High School, nothing really gets the depth it deserves almost by definition; it is a survey of information on a subject; if you want specialty that is what college is for, or outside reading.
.
Sure but you can give people the right numbers at least.
d-usa wrote: High School history is so wrong that it is probably better if they don't cover many things.
Agreed. When I was in school, through independent reading, I discovered that various sections of my AP European History book were dead wrong. Not so much dates, but the manner or ways in which various events occurred, or what have you.
Disgusting. I hope this guy gets the shortest stay he can. We need more people willing to expose war crimes.
What war crimes were those? Again, we've been over the one video he got... it was severely cut to show US military personnel in the worst possible light.
Squigsquasher wrote: And once again 'Murica shows how it values its reputation over human lives.
Disgusting. I hope this guy gets the shortest stay he can. We need more people willing to expose war crimes.
War crimes? I'm pretty sure this was covered earlier in the thread by many others, but for the avoidance of doubt which ones did Pvt. Manning uncover exactly?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: What war crimes were those? Again, we've been over the one video he got... it was severely cut to show US military personnel in the worst possible light.
I thought that was a delicious irony - wikileaks, which values openness and exposing the truth, selectively edited a video to show the US military in the worst possible light
Ratius wrote: A general US war crime comment methinks SS was making, not related to Manning.
I don't think that was what SS was saying at all, and was pretty specific that he was referring to Manning, who didn't actually expose war crimes at all. That tape has been gone over to death, and even in the worst circumstances it was a bunch of people in the wrong place at the wrong time i.e. running around near an ongoing battle at night. This isn't to say the US never makes mistakes, I mean, we got into the stupid war in the first place, but it isn't like we are dumping sarin gas on people either, and mistakes are not the same thing as war crimes. Our drone strike policy is more controversial and problematic, with the level of collateral damage and extremely broad definition of what counts as an eligible target, and Manning isn't tied to that at all.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: And Manning should still go to prison for that because of the multiple laws and rules he violated. Fancy that.
That's fine, if people want him to go to prison for being a rule breaker.
But people who claim people go hurt or killed because of him are talking as much nonsense as the people who are complaining about war crimes.
He violated his oath and broke the rules. And the leaks exposed some potentially questionable military actions but were primarily a PR nightmare for the state department and our foreign relations.
It's an international and military version of the movie "Mean Girls" and Manning leaked the Burn Book.
Disgusting. I hope this guy gets the shortest stay he can. We need more people willing to expose war crimes.
What war crimes were those? Again, we've been over the one video he got... it was severely cut to show US military personnel in the worst possible light.
Technically, the actual invasion of Iraq in itself was a war crime, as it was the invasion of another sovereign nation without legal backing, as if war is fine as long as it's legal! You know what I mean!
KalashnikovMarine wrote: And Manning should still go to prison for that because of the multiple laws and rules he violated. Fancy that.
That's fine, if people want him to go to prison for being a rule breaker.
But people who claim people go hurt or killed because of him are talking as much nonsense as the people who are complaining about war crimes.
He violated his oath and broke the rules. And the leaks exposed some potentially questionable military actions but were primarily a PR nightmare for the state department and our foreign relations.
It's an international and military version of the movie "Mean Girls" and Manning leaked the Burn Book.
Exactly. I said it earlier that Manning's sentence seems to be a reflection of the desire of the embarrassed to gain revenge.
I will keep banging this drum, but a 5-10 year sentence would on reflection, be a fair sentence, as I understand the other side's argument that he broke laws/codes etc.
I will keep banging this drum, but a 5-10 year sentence would on reflection, be a fair sentence, as I understand the other side's argument that he broke laws/codes etc.
While that may be true from a "social justice" point of view, the fact remains that he violated the UCMJ, and is "merely" being punished as such. His sentencing is being conducted within the bounds of Army Regulations, DoD regs, and the structure set forth in the UCMJ, this isn't a civilian court afterall.
Even if it was a civilian court (in this case it would have been Federal) there are still sentencing guidelines a judge must use, and espionage convictions are not a 5 year sentence.
And for the folks who truly believe no damage was done, it would really behoove you to gain a better understanding of what was released and the real implications on collection efforts and source ops. Looking at the flags by your names I suspect many of your countries directly benefit fro our collection efforts.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Technically, the actual invasion of Iraq in itself was a war crime, as it was the invasion of another sovereign nation without legal backing
I'm no fan of the war, but this is probably the most ridiculous reason to be against it. The US is a sovereign nation as well and doesn't need to get the blessing of some extra national entity to be allowed to do what it believes is in it's interest. It may have been stupid, but it was legal within the laws of the US. It wasn't as if the military went off to war after Congress and the President told them not to.
Seaward wrote: I wasn't aware we had so many experts on extremist recruiting trends on Dakka.
I'm not an expert, I'm just repeating what the military experts that testifies in the trial said. And what experts that testified before congress after the leaks were saying.
Late entry to this issue, here are my thoughs on Manning.
Manning is a traitor not a whistleblower. Were he a jornalist who uncovered the 'horrible truth' he could stand on his civil rights to publish and expose the information he found. However this is not the case, he was a serving soldier and thus had the moral obligation to do his job obey orders and keep secrets.
The only legal exception to the above is if he is personally ordered to commit acts that are in violation of the Hague or Geneva Conventions, then as a soldier he is obliged under international law to disobey he orders of his superiors, stating why. Now in reality it might not work quite like that, but thats how it stands in international law. Manning wasn't party to a war crime to which he was able to stand up and vocalise non participation in, he was a record keeper and thus should have kept his mouth shut.
The verdict was justified. Nationality plays no part in this opinion, I would have said the same if he had come from any other nation.
Assange on the other hand is committing no crime by publishing the leaked information, for a start he is not a US citizen and has no obligation to keep US secrets. Manning had.
Orlanth wrote: Assange on the other hand is committing no crime by publishing the leaked information, for a start he is not a US citizen and has no obligation to keep US secrets. Manning had.
I can definitely agree with you there when it comes to wikileaks.
Power does what it wants (to quote the late great George Carlin) and is often brazenly hypocritical in an absurd and kafkaesque way. It's nice to occasionally see an individual comment on the emperor's new clothes without ending up in front of a firing squad or behind bars.
Seaward wrote: I wasn't aware we had so many experts on extremist recruiting trends on Dakka.
I'm not an expert, I'm just repeating what the military experts that testifies in the trial said. And what experts that testified before congress after the leaks were saying.
Seaward wrote: I wasn't aware we had so many experts on extremist recruiting trends on Dakka.
I'm not an expert, I'm just repeating what the military experts that testifies in the trial said. And what experts that testified before congress after the leaks were saying.
Some of them. The prosecution had witnesses, too.
You guys haven't been able to produce a single name that has been linked as a victim to the leaks, despite numerous requests to do so.
The prosecution witness initialy stated that one person was killed because of the leak, but on cross he stated that the person was not named in the leaks.
The US counter-intelligence official who led the Pentagon's review into the fallout from the WikiLeaks disclosures of state secrets told the Bradley Manning sentencing hearing on Wednesday that no instances were ever found of any individual killed by enemy forces as a result of having been named in the releases.
Brigadier general Robert Carr, a senior counter-intelligence officer who headed the Information Review Task Force that investigated the impact of WikiLeaks disclosures on behalf of the Defense Department, told a court at Fort Meade, Maryland, that they had uncovered no specific examples of anyone who had lost his or her life in reprisals that followed the publication of the disclosures on the internet. "I don't have a specific example," he said.
Carr initially toldl the judge presiding over the case, Colonel Denise Lind, that there had been an individual killed in Afghanistan as a result of the publication by WikiLeaks of the Afghan war logs that recorded military activities on the ground. "As a result of the Afghan logs I know of one individual killed – an Afghan national who had a relationship with the US government and the Taliban came out and said publicly that they had killed him as a result of him being associated with information in these logs," Carr said.
But under defence cross-examination Carr conceded that the victim's name had not be included in the war logs made public by WikiLeaks. Asked by Lind whether the individual who was killed was tied to the disclosures, Carr replied: "The Taliban killed him and tied him to the disclosures. We went back and looked for the name in the disclosures. The name of the individual killed was not in the disclosures."
You guys haven't been able to produce a single name that has been linked as a victim to the leaks, despite numerous requests to do so.
Who's "you guys?" Last I checked, I wasn't working for the prosecution.
I also believe it's fully impossible to link any one death to Manning's leaks, so that's a rather ridiculous standard. What we should be looking at is whether or not anything he released aided extremist recruiting.
Manning is a traitor not a whistleblower. Were he a jornalist who uncovered the 'horrible truth' he could stand on his civil rights to publish and expose the information he found. However this is not the case, he was a serving soldier and thus had the moral obligation to do his job obey orders and keep secrets.
When Manning is said to be whistleblower it is a reference to this piece of legislation.
Monster Rain wrote: No way, man. You think it won't be big news if something like that happens?
"Wikileaks Informant in Sex Change Shocker!" I can see it now.
He'll get a 15 second blurb on HLN when he's released, that'll be about it. In 8 years if you say Bradley Manning in a crowded room, you might get one or two people who know what your talking about.
His life is basically ruined as it is from all this nonsense. Eight years in federal prison isn't a picnic.
He'll be at the DoD detention facility at Leavenworth (most likely). It is strict, but not quite as harsh as a regular Fed pen. A lot less inmate on inmate violence and similar problems. Not a picnic, but it could be a lot worse.
What Bradley Manning's Sentence Will Tell Us About Our Military Justice System
By Michael Moore
Today Bradley Manning was convicted on 20 of 22 counts, including violating the Espionage Act, releasing classified information and disobeying orders. That's the bad news. The good news is he was found not guilty on the charge of "aiding the enemy." That's 'cause who he was aiding was us, the American people. And we're not the enemy. Right?
Manning now faces a potential maximum sentence of 136 years in jail. When his sentence is announced, we'll all get a good idea of how seriously the U.S. military takes different crimes. When you hear about how long Manning – now 25 years old – will be in prison, compare it to sentences received by other soldiers:
Col. Thomas M. Pappas, the senior military intelligence officer at Abu Ghraib and the senior officer present the night of the murder of Iraqi prisoner Manadel al-Jamadi, received no jail time. But he was reprimanded and fined $8,000. (Pappas was heard to say about al-Jamadi, "I'm not going down for this alone.")
Sgt. Sabrina Harman, the woman famously seen giving a thumbs-up next to al-Jamadi's body and in another photo smiling next to naked, hooded Iraqis stacked on each other in Abu Ghraib, was sentenced to six months for maltreating detainees.
Spec. Armin Cruz was sentenced to eight months for abusing Iraqis at Abu Ghraib and covering up the abuse.
Spc. Steven Ribordy was sentenced to eight months for being accessory to the murder of four Iraqi prisoners who were "bound, blindfolded, shot and dumped in a canal" in Baghdad in 2007.
Spc. Belmor Ramos was sentenced to seven months for conspiracy to commit murder in the same case.
Sgt. Michael Leahy Jr. was sentenced to life in prison for committing the four Baghdad murders. The military then granted him clemency and reduced his sentence to 20 years, with parole possible after seven.
Marine Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich received no jail time for negligent dereliction in the massacre of 24 unarmed men, women and children in 2005 in the Iraqi town of Haditha. Seven other members of his battalion were charged but none were punished in any way.
Marine Lance Cpl. Jerry Shumate and Lance Cpl. Tyler Jackson were both sentenced to 21 months for the aggravated assault of Hashim Ibrahim Awad, 52, a father of 11 and grandfather of four, in Al Hamdania in 2006. Awad died after being shot during the assault. Their sentences were later reduced.
Marine Lance Cpl. Robert Pennington was sentenced to eight years for the same incident, but served only a few months before being granted clemency and released from prison.
Marine Sgt. Lawrence G. Hutchins III was sentenced to 15 years for murder in the Awad case but his conviction was soon overturned and he was released.
No soldiers received any punishment for the killing of five Iraqi children, four women and two men in one Ishaqi home in 2006. Among the U.S. diplomatic cables leaked by Bradley Manning was email from a UN official stating that U.S. soldiers had "executed all of them." When Wikileaks published the cable, the uproar in Iraq was so big that the Nouri al-Maliki government couldn't grant any remaining U.S. troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, thus forcing the Obama administration to abandon its plans to keep several thousand U.S. soldiers in Iraq permanently. All U.S. troops were removed at the end of 2011.
My guess is Bradley Manning will spend more time in jail than all of the other soldiers in all of these cases put together. And thus, instead of redeeming ourselves and asking forgiveness for the crimes that Spc. Manning exposed, we will reaffirm to the world who we really are.
People with no grasp of facts to argue their point or back up their point of view always resort to personal insults. The Michael Moore piece is full of well documented factual information. Whether you like him or not it doesn't change those facts.
Personal insults are also against forum rules, so I'll refrain from saying what I think of you lot.
Bradley Manning Headed To Prison, While Those Who Presided Over Torture Go Free
ORT MEADE, Md. -- Bradley Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison on Wednesday for releasing 700,000 documents about the United States' worldwide diplomacy and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Manning was a 25-year-old Army private first class at the time of his arrest. He saw himself as an idealist acting to end the wars, and said in online chats with hacker Adrian Lamo that he was particularly concerned about the abuse of detainees in Iraq. No political or military higher-ups have ever been prosecuted for detainee abuse or torture in Iraq, Afghanistan or at Guantanamo Bay.
"One of the serious problems with Manning's case is that it sets a chilling precedent, that people who leak information ... can be prosecuted this aggressively as a deterrent to that conduct," said Andrea Prasow, senior counterterrorism counsel and advocate in Human Rights Watch's U.S. Program. "Shouldn't we be deterring people who commit torture?"
Here are some of the individuals who have been involved since 9/11 in detainee abuse and torture, and potential war crimes, and have never been prosecuted.
George W. Bush George W. Bush was president when the U.S. invaded Iraq based on faulty intelligence, tortured terror prisoners and conducted extraordinary renditions around the world.
"Enhanced interrogation," a Bush administration euphemism for torture, was approved at the highest level. A "principals committee" composed of Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft signed off on the methods.
"There are solid grounds to investigate Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Tenet for authorizing torture and war crimes," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, when the group released a report called "Getting Away With Torture" in 2011.
Dick Cheney As Bush's vice president, Cheney pushed the nation over to the "dark side," as he called it, in the war on terror.
The U.S. used extraordinary renditions to swoop up terror suspects and send them to repressive regimes in places like Syria and Libya for torture. Cheney was the key driver in producing the faulty intelligence that led the U.S. into war in Iraq. And he steadfastly defended the CIA's use of water-boarding and other torture tactics on U.S. prisoners.
Cheney "fears being tried as a war criminal," according to Colin Powell's former chief of staff Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, but he never has been.
Donald Rumsfeld One of the planners of the Iraq War, Rumsfeld steadfastly maintained while Defense Secretary under Bush that U.S. soldiers did not have an obligation to stop torture being used by their Iraqi counterparts. He also approved of "stripping prisoners naked, hooding them, exposing prisoners to extremes of heat and cold, and slamming them up against walls" at Guantanamo.
While deployed to Iraq, Manning discovered that Iraqi soldiers had arrested members of a political group for producing a pamphlet called "Where Did the Money Go?" decrying corruption in the cabinet of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
"‘i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on," Manning wrote in the chat logs. "he didn’t want to hear any of it … he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees."
George Tenet and CIA torturers Tenet was the CIA chief who told Bush that the case for war with Iraq was a "slam dunk." Under his watch, the CIA waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.
Further down the chain of command at the spy agency, lower-level officers have escaped prosecution for killing a prisoner in Iraq and one in Afghanistan in CIA custody. Attorney General Eric Holder in 2012 ruled out prosecuting anyone responsible for those deaths.
In sharp contrast, former CIA agent John Kiriakou is currently serving a 30-month sentence for revealing to reporters the names of interrogators involved in detainee abuse.
Abu Ghraib higher-ups Although low-level soldiers like former Army Reserve Specialist Lynndie England were court-martialed for their role in detainee abuse at this notorious prison in Iraq, graphically illustrated in photos, the only officer prosecuted in the case had his conviction tossed out.
A 2009 Senate Armed Services Committee report found that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were not the result of a few unmonitored bad apples but rather the direct result of "enhanced interrogation" practices approved of by officials much higher up in the Bush administration.
BrassScorpion wrote: People with no grasp of facts to argue their point or back up their point of view always resort to personal insults. The Michael Moore piece is full of well documented factual information. Whether you like him or not it doesn't change those facts.
Personal insults are also against forum rules, so I'll refrain from saying what I think of you lot.
I guess showing where any of the folks you want to see in jail actually committed crimes, were charged and convicted would go a long way towards making your point. Accusing Pres Bush of 'war crimes' is bumper sticker tripe, not something factually based.
More salient comments on the injustice of the sentencing in this case when people who committed far more heinous acts got lighter sentences or walked free.
"A Sad Day For All Americans": Human Rights and Legal Organizations Slam Bradley Manning Sentence
A military judge has sentenced Army whistleblower Bradley Manning to 35 years. Below are comments from legal and human rights organizations:
The Center for Constitutional Rights:
We are outraged that a whistleblower and a patriot has been sentenced on a conviction under the Espionage Act. The government has stretched this archaic and discredited law to send an unmistakable warning to potential whistleblowers and journalists willing to publish their information. We can only hope that Manning’s courage will continue to inspire others who witness state crimes to speak up.
This show trial was a frontal assault on the First Amendment, from the way the prosecution twisted Manning’s actions to blur the distinction between whistleblowing and spying to the government’s tireless efforts to obstruct media coverage of the proceedings. It is a travesty of justice that Manning, who helped bring to light the criminality of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, is being punished while the alleged perpetrators of the crimes he exposed are not even investigated. Every aspect of this case sets a dangerous precedent for future prosecutions of whistleblowers – who play an essential role in democratic government by telling us the truth about government wrongdoing – and we fear for the future of our country in the wake of this case.
We must channel our outrage and continue building political pressure for Manning’s freedom. President Obama should pardon Bradley Manning, and if he refuses, a presidential pardon must be an election issue in 2016.
Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties Union:
When a soldier who shared information with the press and public is punished far more harshly than others who tortured prisoners and killed civilians, something is seriously wrong with our justice system. A legal system that doesn’t distinguish between leaks to the press in the public interest and treason against the nation will not only produce unjust results, but will deprive the public of critical information that is necessary for democratic accountability. This is a sad day for Bradley Manning, but it’s also a sad day for all Americans who depend on brave whistleblowers and a free press for a fully informed public debate.
Widney Brown of Amnesty International:
Bradley Manning acted on the belief that he could spark a meaningful public debate on the costs of war, and specifically on the conduct of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan. His revelations included reports on battlefield detentions and previously unseen footage of journalists and other civilians being killed in US helicopter attacks, information which should always have been subject to public scrutiny.
Instead of fighting tooth and nail to lock him up for the equivalent of several life sentences, the US government should turn its attention to investigating and delivering justice for the serious human rights abuses committed by its officials in the name of countering terror.
Manning had already pleaded guilty to leaking information, so for the US to have continued prosecuting him under the Espionage Act, even charging him with ‘aiding the enemy,’ can only be seen as a harsh warning to anyone else tempted to expose government wrongdoing. More than anything else, the case shows the urgent need to reform the USA’s antiquated Espionage Act and strengthen protections for those who reveal information that the public has a need and a right to know.
Bradley Manning should be shown clemency in recognition of his motives for acting as he did, the treatment he endured in his early pre-trial detention, and the due process shortcomings during his trial. The President doesn’t need to wait for this sentence to be appealed to commute it; he can and should do so right now.
BrassScorpion wrote: More salient comments on the injustice of the sentencing in this case when people who committed far more heinous acts got lighter sentences or walked free.
Your sources are all so credible that it's completely changing my view of this case.
BrassScorpion wrote: More salient comments on the injustice of the sentencing in this case when people who committed far more heinous acts got lighter sentences or walked free.
Your sources are all so credible that it's completely changing my view of this case.
I'd like to see similar articles from an opposing source. I see Democracy Now, I'd like to see Totalitarian Yesterday, and Conservative Tomorrow.
But seriously, I would be more okay with the statements you're claiming BrassScorpion if you showed "the otherside" that was touting similar views. Anything else is just slanted, political bias.
BrassScorpion wrote: More salient comments on the injustice of the sentencing in this case when people who committed far more heinous acts got lighter sentences or walked free.
Well, I can only speak for myself, but I'm not particularly happy with all the people who committed more heinous acts getting lighter sentences or walking free, either. I agree there are plenty of people who I think did way worse stuff who totally skated on it, which is messed up and not right but we're not using that as a baseline to establish justice either, right?
Real culprits for war crimes and recent military disasters go free while this young man gets 35 years in prison.
In Bradley Manning, We Finally Have a Scapegoat for the Iraq War
Manning serves as a fall guy for two failed wars against whom Republicans and the deeply compromised Democrats can unite in vindictive harmony. Chase Madar August 21, 2013
The best way to cope with humiliating military disaster is to find a scapegoat. For the Germans after World War I, it was leftists and Jews who “stabbed the nation in the back”—the Dolchstoßlegende that set the global standard. In the resentful folklore that grows like kudzu around our Vietnam War, American defeat is blamed on the hippies and anti-American journalists who sabotaged a military effort that was on the verge of total victory. (More sophisticated revanchists season this pottage with imprecations against General Westmoreland’s leadership.)
The horrible problem with our Iraq and Afghan wars is that policy elites can’t find anyone to blame for their failure. Widespread fatigue with both wars never translated into an effective antiwar movement with any kind of mass base or high public profile. As for journalists, even liberal media platforms like The New Yorker and MSNBC dutifully mouthed administration propaganda in favor of both wars. (The liability of a thoroughly embedded media is that they can’t be blamed for military failure.)
In other words, the usual suspects for stabbing-in-back whodunits all have ironclad alibis. Who will save us from this thoroughly unsatisfying anticlimax?
Enter Pfc. Bradley Manning. In the young Oklahoman we finally have a fall guy for two failed wars against whom Republicans and the deeply compromised Democrats can unite in vindictive harmony. His release of 700,000 documents to WikiLeaks is well under 1 percent of what Washington classified last year, but the moral panic it has generated among American media and policy elites has scratched a certain punitive itch. His thirty-five-year sentence is a sign that he must have done something seriously wrong. Finally, we have held someone responsible.
One almost has to admire the deft disingenuousness of our foreign policy mandarins. Though the real (and ongoing) carnage in Iraq and Afghanistan has elicited only their sulky silence, how they gush with brave humanitarian concern over the purely speculative damage they attribute to Manning and WikiLeaks! Some variation of “He has blood on his hands!” has been shrieked with joy by top civilian and military officials in the Obama administration.
The double-subjunctive mood of “may have put lives at risk of harm” is of course two degrees of reality removed from the actual slaughter that continues in our Afghan War (some 1,600 soldiers dead since Obama took office, and thousands more civilians, without any military or humanitarian gains to show), but no matter. Retired Brigadier General Robert Carr testified in the court-martial that there was no firm evidence of any Afghan civilian harmed by the release of the Afghan War logs. Military judge Denise Lind did not allow most of the State Department’s vaporous speculations of harm to US interests to be admitted as evidence against the young private.
But this doesn’t mean we can’t blame Bradley Manning. After all, he is the only player in the saga of our Iraq War to be prosecuted—or to make a public apology. “I am sorry that my actions hurt people,” said the private, facing a possible ninety years in prison, in an effort to throw himself on the mercy of the judge. After all, no mea culpas have sprung from the lips of George W. Bush or Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld or Condi Rice; not from Bill or Hillary Clinton, both of whom supported the Iraq invasion; not from David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker, which editorialized in favor of the war after publishing spurious reports on the links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Nor has New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who told a bemused Charlie Rose that the United States needed to invade Iraq and tell its troublesome inhabitants to “Suck. On. This.” The Bush/Cheney administration’s torture lawyer Jay Bybee has not apologized, and the feckless Democrats have not apologized for failing to impeach Bybee off the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where he now wields immense power, just one judicial layer beneath the Supreme Court of the United States. This long and distinguished list of non-apologies could go on, and on, and on—but fortunately we have found a private to blame.
So thank God for Bradley Manning. Not only did he provide us with hundreds of front-page news stories to enjoy with our morning coffee, he fulfills the sacred role of national scapegoat. All the good people who blame the teachers unions for child poverty and bicycle lanes for bad traffic can now hold Bradley Manning responsible for the military and humanitarian failures of the past decade, for the hundreds of thousands dead, for the trillions of dollars spent, for the long-term public health damage that will give parts of Iraq astronomical rates of birth defects for generations.
As Dolchstoßlegenden go, it’s pretty pathetic. But then our national standards have been slipping and it’s the best we can do. Manning’s thirty-five-year sentence could mean eight or nine more years in prison before release, at which point he will be able to live free, just like George W. Bush and Frank Wuterich, commander of the Marine unit that killed twenty-four civilians in Haditha, Iraq, many of them women and children slaughtered execution style. Manning’s sentence is shameful, cruel and stupid, like our Iraq War itself, to which the prosecution of this patriotic truth-teller is a bitterly appropriate finale.
Monster Rain wrote: What makes me really laugh is the same bunch who treat Democracy Now! as gospel will cry the blues about Fox's conservative bias.
There's a rather substantial difference there: when we accuse Fox of calling a discredited Republican a Democrat, or photoshopping a Democrat's picture to make them look misshapen, we can point to contradictory evidence that proves Fox's deception. You, on the other hand, are just bleating about "bias" without the slightest bit of evidence to back it up. If you dispute that the harshest sentence given to the rapists and torturers at Abu Ghraib was ten years where Manning got thirty-five, prove it, or shut up.
Using terms like "war criminals" when describing the actions of Bush, Abu Ghraib, etc... and how those people didn't get nearly as long as a sentence (or none in Bush's case) as a man that "leaked government secrets" and linking to news articles that are all extremely liberal in their view is letting your bias show, which is why I asked for conservative news sources with the liberal new sources he was posting.
Fortunately, Bradley Manning was allowed to speak.
Read the full transcript of Bradley Manning's statement today. In his remarks, he quotes late historian Howard Zinn: "There is not a flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people."
Bradley Manning: 'Sometimes You Have to Pay a Heavy Price to Live in a Free Society'
The following is a transcript of the statement made by Pfc. Bradley Manning as read by David Coombs at a press conference on Wednesday after Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison.
The decisions that I made in 2010 were made out of a concern for my country and the world that we live in. Since the tragic events of 9/11, our country has been at war. We’ve been at war with an enemy that chooses not to meet us on any traditional battlefield, and due to this fact we’ve had to alter our methods of combating the risks posed to us and our way of life.
I initially agreed with these methods and chose to volunteer to help defend my country. It was not until I was in Iraq and reading secret military reports on a daily basis that I started to question the morality of what we were doing. It was at this time I realized in our efforts to meet this risk posed to us by the enemy, we have forgotten our humanity. We consciously elected to devalue human life both in Iraq and Afghanistan. When we engaged those that we perceived were the enemy, we sometimes killed innocent civilians. Whenever we killed innocent civilians, instead of accepting responsibility for our conduct, we elected to hide behind the veil of national security and classified information in order to avoid any public accountability.
In our zeal to kill the enemy, we internally debated the definition of torture. We held individuals at Guantanamo for years without due process. We inexplicably turned a blind eye to torture and executions by the Iraqi government. And we stomached countless other acts in the name of our war on terror.
Patriotism is often the cry extolled when morally questionable acts are advocated by those in power. When these cries of patriotism drown our any logically based intentions [unclear], it is usually an American soldier that is ordered to carry out some ill-conceived mission.
Our nation has had similar dark moments for the virtues of democracy—the Trail of Tears, the Dred Scott decision, McCarthyism, the Japanese-American internment camps—to name a few. I am confident that many of our actions since 9/11 will one day be viewed in a similar light.
As the late Howard Zinn once said, "There is not a flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people."
I understand that my actions violated the law, and I regret if my actions hurt anyone or harmed the United States. It was never my intention to hurt anyone. I only wanted to help people. When I chose to disclose classified information, I did so out of a love for my country and a sense of duty to others.
If you deny my request for a pardon, I will serve my time knowing that sometimes you have to pay a heavy price to live in a free society. I will gladly pay that price if it means we could have country that is truly conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all women and men are created equal.
Read the full transcript of Bradley Manning's statement today. In his remarks, he quotes late historian Howard Zinn: "There is not a flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people."
Bradley Manning: 'Sometimes You Have to Pay a Heavy Price to Live in a Free Society'
The following is a transcript of the statement made by Pfc. Bradley Manning as read by David Coombs at a press conference on Wednesday after Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison.
The decisions that I made in 2010 were made out of a concern for my country and the world that we live in. Since the tragic events of 9/11, our country has been at war. We’ve been at war with an enemy that chooses not to meet us on any traditional battlefield, and due to this fact we’ve had to alter our methods of combating the risks posed to us and our way of life.
I initially agreed with these methods and chose to volunteer to help defend my country. It was not until I was in Iraq and reading secret military reports on a daily basis that I started to question the morality of what we were doing. It was at this time I realized in our efforts to meet this risk posed to us by the enemy, we have forgotten our humanity. We consciously elected to devalue human life both in Iraq and Afghanistan. When we engaged those that we perceived were the enemy, we sometimes killed innocent civilians. Whenever we killed innocent civilians, instead of accepting responsibility for our conduct, we elected to hide behind the veil of national security and classified information in order to avoid any public accountability.
In our zeal to kill the enemy, we internally debated the definition of torture. We held individuals at Guantanamo for years without due process. We inexplicably turned a blind eye to torture and executions by the Iraqi government. And we stomached countless other acts in the name of our war on terror.
Patriotism is often the cry extolled when morally questionable acts are advocated by those in power. When these cries of patriotism drown our any logically based intentions [unclear], it is usually an American soldier that is ordered to carry out some ill-conceived mission.
Our nation has had similar dark moments for the virtues of democracy—the Trail of Tears, the Dred Scott decision, McCarthyism, the Japanese-American internment camps—to name a few. I am confident that many of our actions since 9/11 will one day be viewed in a similar light.
As the late Howard Zinn once said, "There is not a flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people."
I understand that my actions violated the law, and I regret if my actions hurt anyone or harmed the United States. It was never my intention to hurt anyone. I only wanted to help people. When I chose to disclose classified information, I did so out of a love for my country and a sense of duty to others.
If you deny my request for a pardon, I will serve my time knowing that sometimes you have to pay a heavy price to live in a free society. I will gladly pay that price if it means we could have country that is truly conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all women and men are created equal.
Funny. Manning didn't write that, his lawyer did. And it is full of the same BS you've been pasting into this topic all afternoon.
Monster Rain wrote: What makes me really laugh is the same bunch who treat Democracy Now! as gospel will cry the blues about Fox's conservative bias.
There's a rather substantial difference there: when we accuse Fox of calling a discredited Republican a Democrat, or photoshopping a Democrat's picture to make them look misshapen, we can point to contradictory evidence that proves Fox's deception. You, on the other hand, are just bleating about "bias" without the slightest bit of evidence to back it up. If you dispute that the harshest sentence given to the rapists and torturers at Abu Ghraib was ten years where Manning got thirty-five, prove it, or shut up.
Allow me to translate:
"The pundits and news sources I happen to agree with are more truthful than those with whom I do not agree."
I totally get it.
As for the Abu Ghraib thing, I consider it irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Alfndrate wrote: Using terms like "war criminals" when describing the actions of Bush, Abu Ghraib, etc... and how those people didn't get nearly as long as a sentence (or none in Bush's case) as a man that "leaked government secrets" and linking to news articles that are all extremely liberal in their view is letting your bias show, which is why I asked for conservative news sources with the liberal new sources he was posting.
Do you dispute that torturing prisoners is a war crime? If not, then quit the mealy-mouthed bs about "bias".
Alfndrate wrote: Using terms like "war criminals" when describing the actions of Bush, Abu Ghraib, etc... and how those people didn't get nearly as long as a sentence (or none in Bush's case) as a man that "leaked government secrets" and linking to news articles that are all extremely liberal in their view is letting your bias show, which is why I asked for conservative news sources with the liberal new sources he was posting.
Do you dispute that torturing prisoners is a war crime? If not, then quit the mealy-mouthed bs about "bias".
Erm... Bush and Cheney tortured the prisoners?
I did want Rumsfield to be fired/resigned over this.
Alfndrate wrote: Using terms like "war criminals" when describing the actions of Bush, Abu Ghraib, etc... and how those people didn't get nearly as long as a sentence (or none in Bush's case) as a man that "leaked government secrets" and linking to news articles that are all extremely liberal in their view is letting your bias show, which is why I asked for conservative news sources with the liberal new sources he was posting.
Do you dispute that torturing prisoners is a war crime? If not, then quit the mealy-mouthed bs about "bias".
Well, I dispute that Bieber is a musician, but unfortunately for both of us neither is really in the arena of opinion? Waterboarding sure was torture back when we hung Japanese troops for doing it to Americans, and when we court martialed our own troops for doing it to Filipinos.
Well, I dispute that Bieber is a musician, but unfortunately for both of us neither is really in the arena of opinion? Waterboarding sure was torture back when we hung Japanese troops for doing it to Americans, and when we court martialed our own troops for doing it to Filipinos.
Why we're talking about this again?
Anyways, Manning broke the law. If he wanted to be a whistleblower, there were legal avenue he could've chosen.
Well, I dispute that Bieber is a musician, but unfortunately for both of us neither is really in the arena of opinion? Waterboarding sure was torture back when we hung Japanese troops for doing it to Americans, and when we court martialed our own troops for doing it to Filipinos.
Water Cure (what the Japanese did) and Water Boarding are two completely different things. Water Cure IS torture, in that it does cause physical harm, and often times leads to death. Water Boarding is not, and does not. I know this has been covered a ton of times on here, I don't know why this tired tripe keeps getting dragged out.
So....are we Bush bashing or debating water boarding is torture? Mind you it was an unpleasant 15-20 min ordeal but I knew it was ending due to the time line. The lack of sleep through out was a real pain in the arse though.
Jihadin wrote: So....are we Bush bashing or debating water boarding is torture? Mind you it was an unpleasant 15-20 min ordeal but I knew it was ending due to the time line. The lack of sleep through out was a real pain in the arse though.
I know we put our own guys through it, and possibly worse in SERE training. I wish I could attend at some point in my career, just so I could see where my breaking point is.
djones520 wrote: Water Cure (what the Japanese did) and Water Boarding are two completely different things. Water Cure IS torture, in that it does cause physical harm, and often times leads to death. Water Boarding is not, and does not. I know this has been covered a ton of times on here, I don't know why this tired tripe keeps getting dragged out.
djones520 wrote: Water Cure (what the Japanese did) and Water Boarding are two completely different things. Water Cure IS torture, in that it does cause physical harm, and often times leads to death. Water Boarding is not, and does not. I know this has been covered a ton of times on here, I don't know why this tired tripe keeps getting dragged out.
Because you are disconnected from reality.
I'm not going to offtrack this further, feel free to start a new thread if you wish to make these outlandish claims anyone with google and 30 seconds can debunk
I love it.
While you're on google, use 15 of that 30 seconds to learn the difference between water boarding and the water cure.
Also, I absolutely LOVE that Brass' "sources" decry the "American Justice System" when in fact, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the "American Justice System" and everything to do with the "Uniform Code of Military Justice"
The keyword in there, MILITARY. I mean, holy flying monkey poo, this dirtbag was not a civilian!!!! Civilian laws and ideals are meaningless in this case. While certainly there are injustices within the UCMJ, we are still, overall held to a little higher standard than the average person. What he did was completely and totally inexcusable, and I think that the punishment is OK.
I though do want to clarify. Water Boarding is a "Total Mind Rollercoaster Ride" that's help along with gasping for breaths. Physical torture though is a different ball game. Both though will employ "Lack of Sleep". One though is faster then the other. Physical Torture aspect is quicker but anyone will say anything to stop the physical pain. Mental torture comes down to mental endurance and will power vs pain threshold and will power.
SERE school does not test how much you can endure. Its hardening you not to become belligerent during "torture". The more belligerent you are the more of a "Horror Show" you going to go through. I'm going to loosely say this in this term. "You control how bad its going to be". Which is offset by how badly the other party wants to hurt you in general being an American with the possibility you might have some intell they want.
edit
UCMJ sentencing on par with other sentencing. Two prior cases both received 30+ years. Unlike civilian side of the house where individuals get life in prison. Manning eligible for parole at 40.
Water Boarding is torture, of course, as most military interrogators will tell you. That we employ it in training, which an attendee can opt out of if he wants, doesn't change that.
Malcolm Nance wrote:In fact, waterboarding is just the type of torture then Lt. Commander John McCain had to endure at the hands of the North Vietnamese. As a former Master Instructor and Chief of Training at the US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego, California I know the waterboard personally and intimately. SERE staff were required undergo the waterboard at its fullest. I was no exception. I have personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people. It has been reported that both the Army and Navy SERE school's interrogation manuals were used to form the interrogation techniques used by the US army and the CIA for its terror suspects. What was not mentioned in most articles was that SERE was designed to show how an evil totalitarian, enemy would use torture at the slightest whim. If this is the case, then waterboarding is unquestionably being used as torture technique.
Mannahnin wrote: Water Boarding is torture, of course, as most military interrogators will tell you. That we employ it in training, which an attendee can opt out of if he wants, doesn't change that.
Yeah, but "torture" is a bit of a spectrum, don't you think?
Playing loud music is considered torture by some if the Gitmo controversy is any indication, which is a far cry from some of the more barbaric practices that involve cutting and burning and crushing bones and whatnot. The real impasse on this topic is whether or not one feels that the ends justify the means if something like waterboarding can be used to prevent more serious harm to other people. I think it's a much less a black and white issue than people are comfortable admitting.
Alfndrate wrote: Using terms like "war criminals" when describing the actions of Bush, Abu Ghraib, etc... and how those people didn't get nearly as long as a sentence (or none in Bush's case) as a man that "leaked government secrets" and linking to news articles that are all extremely liberal in their view is letting your bias show, which is why I asked for conservative news sources with the liberal new sources he was posting.
Do you dispute that torturing prisoners is a war crime? If not, then quit the mealy-mouthed bs about "bias".
Define Prisoners of War vs. Enemy Combatants.
I believe that the people that are shooting at US soldiers over in Iraq, Afganistan, etc... don't qualify as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, but history was never my strong suit.
Mannahnin wrote: Water Boarding is torture, of course, as most military interrogators will tell you. That we employ it in training, which an attendee can opt out of if he wants, doesn't change that.
Malcolm Nance wrote:In fact, waterboarding is just the type of torture then Lt. Commander John McCain had to endure at the hands of the North Vietnamese. As a former Master Instructor and Chief of Training at the US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego, California I know the waterboard personally and intimately. SERE staff were required undergo the waterboard at its fullest. I was no exception. I have personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people. It has been reported that both the Army and Navy SERE school's interrogation manuals were used to form the interrogation techniques used by the US army and the CIA for its terror suspects. What was not mentioned in most articles was that SERE was designed to show how an evil totalitarian, enemy would use torture at the slightest whim. If this is the case, then waterboarding is unquestionably being used as torture technique.
Well... the only thing I'd add is that do we consider all forms of torture totally inappropriate?
I mean, I can't watch Peirs Morgan as I want to pull my eyeballs out everytime... isn't that torture?
Mannahnin wrote: Water Boarding is torture, of course, as most military interrogators will tell you. That we employ it in training, which an attendee can opt out of if he wants, doesn't change that.
You can opt out of waterboarding? Wish I'd known that.
Can you opt out of getting socked around by that tiny chick, too?
Monster Rain wrote: Yeah, but "torture" is a bit of a spectrum, don't you think?
Playing loud music is considered torture by some if the Gitmo controversy is any indication, which is a far cry from some of the more barbaric practices that involve cutting and burning and crushing bones and whatnot.
Sleep deprivation causes madness followed by death. Waterboarding is nothing less than controlled drowning. Like electrocution, they are merely more easily hidden forms of torture.
The real impasse on this topic is whether or not one feels that the ends justify the means if something like waterboarding can be used to prevent more serious harm to other people. I think it's a much less a black and white issue than people are comfortable admitting.
No, it is not. That is why it's so obscene to see people like yourself defending it. Torture isn't just evil, it is also useless. It is incapable of obtaining accurate intelligence - the CIA's idiotic reliance on torture as a source of intelligence is one of the reasons it took so long to find Bin Laden. The only thing torture is good for is to inspire fear and hatred: in other words, to commit acts of terrorism.
I believe that the people that are shooting at US soldiers over in Iraq, Afganistan, etc... don't qualify as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, but history was never my strong suit.
Legally speaking, there is no such thing as an "unlawful combatant". You are either a prisoner of war, and receive the protection of the Geneva Conventions, or you are a civilian, and receive the protection of the Geneva Conventions. There is no third option. It is a lie invented by the Bush administration to pretend they were not committing war crimes by violating the protections required by the Geneva Conventions.
Show me where I defended torture. If you would calm down for five seconds you'd see that I was talking about the debate itself, and not offering my own opinion on the subject. I'm not going to attempt to engage in an actual conversation with you, since you are clearly only interested in frothing all over your screen, but your opinions may not be objectively correct.
. The question remains, how long will he be able to go before he can taste a McDonald's cheeseburger, fries, and a coke?
Imperial Commissar all the way. 
there!
