Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

First of all feth CAC reader only systems, I blame Dozens of trips to the DFAC and then back to Ops for that fething policy. And yes...he's totally hosed. There's no way he's not going down for SOMETHING, at this point it's how bad he goes down. (insert sexual comment here)

CAC is the bane of my existence. Especially the **** Sergeant Major on uniform patrol at the DFAC when I try to convince the Triple Canopy guys to let me through.

"Sorry, Chief, no CAC, no entry - oh and blouse your flight suit"

Fether.

Which is total bananas ass horse gak because he knows that the velcro doesn't hold em up for gak, and I'll be damned if I'm going to start clouding inside the boots now...
For my own edification what do you fly?

Damn...CAC for the DFAC...thats Iraq? Afghanistan was the old sign in roster. SMAJ's avoid the DFAC for their "On the Spot Correction" jollies when some guy lock and loaded from a marine unit that did not have a good couple of days.

In the good old days it was just some waffle turner with a clicker taking a count, then came IDs, then came Ugandan security and a scanner for CaCs and a sign in for a back up. It was so easy to think your security badge was your CAC too, so check your pockets, feel card, get to DFAC: BADGE FAIL!

It never ceases to amaze me how readily Americans will adopt a collectivist mentality where the military, or national defense, is concerned.

That´s still nothing, at least you US guys dont get your volentering nationalistic suicide bomber brigades televised across the globe a´la iran.

Can anyone in the anti-Manning camp give an example of anyone who's died as a result of his actions?

Personally I am waiting for proof of either, if none happened then certainly no death penalty should be metered out. Nobody deserved the chair for simply embarrassing a bunch of diplomats and basically helping cover holes in the intelligence community but if it is proven that he was the cause of deaths then turn on the amps.

You seem to think its more important to punish a person who MAY have endangered some people than to hold to account those that actually HAVE endangered people

Murdog: I understand your point and can to a degree agree with it.
To me however everything is a matter of cost vs benefit.
Yes you are right, punishing one person who maybe is guilty is clearly wrong but then if you up the ante where is the line where you personally will punish 1000 people who might only maybe be wrong?
Should you punish one who is maybe wrong if it means that should he be wrong you just saved 10 lives by punishing him? 10 000 lives?
Should you punish someone without clear evidence of wrong doing if the cost in the scale is your wife and children getting painfully killed should he happen to be guilty?

Where is the line drawn where we can "accept" maybe punishing someone who is not guilty "just in case"?

Until in the future we develop flawless mind reading machines someone somewhere WILL put this line somewhere weather you like it or not.

I wouldn't call the release of 250 000 documents, exposing corruption and warcrimes, 'a little whistle blowing', more like the biggest whistleblowing case in US history.

Again, at what cost? What if and I say, if, it is later on proven that his super big whistle blowing indeed caused a lot of people to be tortured to death in various other countries?

You see this is what pisses me of with those overly humane liberals who always say not one single human life is worth sacraficing without absolute prof and even then nobody should be killed.
And yet here you are, frothing at the mouth over some whistle blower "hero" exposing thousands of documents that show our own corruption when you k n o w perfectly well this little high moral victory might very well mean the death of many humans.

You just put your own cost-vs-benefit bar in plain sight for all to see and yet you would scold me for putting down mine?

The whole reasoning goes that oh no lets not interrogate that terrorist who just "might" know something to harshly since it is wrong to take a life or violate someones rights BUT at the same time lets call a whistle blower a hero for exposing corruption and screw the casualties this might very well produce as a side effect. Again, as long as your high moral horses are upheld it is ok for YOU people to "maybe" cause deaths but oh so wrong for those not of your opinions to "maybe" cause harm themselves.

The hypocricy is staggering.

the waterboarding of prisoners, the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo

As per the above, it is so wrong to hurt a terrorist who just maybe is guilty but ok to maybe kill a lot of people as long as some whistles can be blows?
You realize the levels of hypocricy here?

Francisco Martin Duran was not tried with treason, and he intended to fire lethal weapons on the President. Why should Manning be?

Would Manning be declared a traitor if he only "intended" to spread classified documents but never did it?

Absolutely nothing?

The economy.

Would Manning be declared a traitor if he only "intended" to spread classified documents but never did it?

no. Aid to the enemy MUST move beynod the planning phase to be considered under UCMJ. although moving the documents from SIPR to NIPR or out of the SCIF constitutes a violation of it's own.

There are many shameful acts of deceit in this case.




http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/19/bradley_manning_faces_life_sentence_while

Bradley Manning Faces Life Sentence, While Criminals WikiLeaks Exposed Have Suffered No Consequences–Glenn Greenwald

Democracy Now

We speak with constitutional lawyer and Salon.com blogger Glenn Greenwald about the military pretrial hearing now underway for alleged U.S. Army whistleblower Bradley Manning, who has been accused of releasing classified U.S. documents to WikiLeaks. Greenwald comments on the possible strategy being put forth by Manning’s defense. "All the Manning [tribunal] hearings have been shrouded in secrecy," Greenwald says, noting there may be more transparency in Guantánamo detainee hearings than there has been for the Manning tribunal. "Presumably, his lawyer believes that one of the best ways that they have to keep him out of prison for the next six decades is to argue that he had diminished capacity by virtue of emotional distress over the gender struggles that he had over his sexual orientation being in a military that had a policy of banning those who were openly gay. And so, part of this emotional distress that they’re raising is designed to say that he should be excused from his actions because they were not the byproduct of full choice," says Greenwald, who is openly gay and has been writing extensively about this aspect of Manning’s case. "He is—and I don’t blame him at all—trying to do whatever he can to avoid having his life destroyed, either being killed by the state or locked up in a cage for the rest of his life." [includes rush transcript]

That article made not just my brain, but also my face hurt by reading it.

It's more biased than Biccat.

Good lord there are a lot of things wrong with that little blurb from Democracy Now, starting with the ridiculous title. It is a reminder of why we can't have nice things.

Edit: You know something is amiss when Melissa, biccat, and I can all look at something and think "by jove, just look at the left wing bias". This has nothing to do with the Manning issue itself, but the disingenuous way Democracy Now is framing the issue.

One of the other political action groups I get email alerts from has mentioned a couple of things which it says are mistreatments/violations of the UCMJ.

Jihadin or another person more familiar, would you be so kind as to advise?

One was that the UCMJ called for a speedy trial, within 120 days.

Another that Investigating Officer Paul Almanza has allowed witnesses to submit unsworn statements without appearing in court, which is not allowed under military law.

Article 32

Ahtman wrote:You know something is amiss when Melissa, biccat, and I can all look at something and think "by jove, just look at the left wing bias". This has nothing to do with the Manning issue itself, but the disingenuous way Democracy Now is framing the issue.

I don't know why you dragged my name into this.

It should be disappointing to those on the left that such strident defenders as Mr. Greenwald (who may not actually be an attorney) are leaping to the defense of Mr. Manning. Even if you agree with the results, his actions were most definitely criminal.

I wonder how much of this bias exists because of his sexuality.

I wonder how much of this bias exists because of his sexuality.

Auch

Think the fire "because he gay" angle died quite a bit of the removal of "Don't ask don't tell" policy. Good point though

edit
spelling

Melissia wrote:That article made not just my brain, but also my face hurt by reading it.

It's more biased than Biccat.

So, saying that they defense plans to plead that Manning did not have full faculty of his reasoning due to stress over his status as Gay during DADT so he can avoid prison is biased? Seemed pretty factual to me, assuming that IS what the defense plans to do. Basically, trying to plead that he was temporarily insane.

I don't think it will work, but that's the plan.

The only part that seemed subjective to me was when it said, [paraphrase]"This case is being treated with more secrecy than a Guantanamo Tribunal."[/paraphrase] That part seemed a bit excessive.

Otherwise, what was so objectionable?

@Biccat- Mr. Greenwald is a well known 1st Amendment attorney.

Easy E wrote:@Biccat- Mr. Greenwald is a well known 1st Amendment attorney.

If Mr. Greenwald is not a registered attorney, referring to him as such (and his failure to correct such a reference) could subject him to criminal liability for unauthorized practice of law.

His status is listed as "suspended" in New York. I'm not sure if this is similar to "inactive" or if his registration is invalid. He could be licensed in another state, but I really don't care enough to look.

biccat wrote:I wonder how much of this bias exists because of his sexuality.

I doubt very much of it.

Mostly, I think, he attacked the US government and "reveeled ebull sekretz" so he's a hero in their eyes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Easy E wrote:So, saying that they defense plans to plead that Manning did not have full faculty of his reasoning due to stress over his status as Gay during DADT so he can avoid prison is biased?

No, I'm saying that particular article is more biased than a biography of Barrack Obama as written by Newt with the assistance of the collectvie efforts of the Republican primary candidates.

biccat wrote:

Easy E wrote:@Biccat- Mr. Greenwald is a well known 1st Amendment attorney.

If Mr. Greenwald is not a registered attorney, referring to him as such (and his failure to correct such a reference) could subject him to criminal liability for unauthorized practice of law.

His status is listed as "suspended" in New York. I'm not sure if this is similar to "inactive" or if his registration is invalid. He could be licensed in another state, but I really don't care enough to look.

He currently lives in Brazil.

UCMJ is UCMJ. 1st amendments right has no bearing to Manning case.

biccat wrote:

Easy E wrote:@Biccat- Mr. Greenwald is a well known 1st Amendment attorney.

If Mr. Greenwald is not a registered attorney, referring to him as such (and his failure to correct such a reference) could subject him to criminal liability for unauthorized practice of law.

... .

Wow! US Justice is harsh!

Easy E wrote:So, saying that they defense plans to plead that Manning did not have full faculty of his reasoning due to stress over his status as Gay during DADT so he can avoid prison is biased?

It's a weak defense at best. Back in 2007 I remember a meeting between Top and all the Section Leaders where we discussed two soldiers one male and one female that we probably (they were) homosexual and our concerns. Our concerns were LOSING them and protecting valued members of our organization. In the greater Intelligence community at least in my experience the focus of enlisted leadership focused on skills and ability not sexuality. There was no realistic agitation that I recall about removing DADT at the time and the culture was of acceptance. I'm sure everyones institutional experience is different but I don't see this defense working out for him.

Got one with your Austo. Top made a body bulding E6 the Urinalysis NCO. E6 was gay but we did not care because he does a damn good job. His personnal life did not flow into his professional life.

...and I thought we made OUR meatgazer uncomfortable...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I suppose I should clarify I meant the urinalysis guy...

AustonT wrote:

Easy E wrote:So, saying that they defense plans to plead that Manning did not have full faculty of his reasoning due to stress over his status as Gay during DADT so he can avoid prison is biased?

It's a weak defense at best. Back in 2007 I remember a meeting between Top and all the Section Leaders where we discussed two soldiers one male and one female that we probably (they were) homosexual and our concerns. Our concerns were LOSING them and protecting valued members of our organization. In the greater Intelligence community at least in my experience the focus of enlisted leadership focused on skills and ability not sexuality. There was no realistic agitation that I recall about removing DADT at the time and the culture was of acceptance. I'm sure everyones institutional experience is different but I don't see this defense working out for him.

Totally agree. Weak defense. If that's their defense, I'm pretty sure he's done. Liek I said, the only real question is what the sentence is going to be.

I'm just not sure I see where it was a completely bias story, just because it pointed out what the weak defense argument was going to be. I'm sure it is because I'm just an idiot. Perhaps Greenwald's quote was too full of purple prose and not cold enough?

Life. Busting big rocks into little rocks on thursday.

Easy E wrote:
He currently lives in Brazil.

Unsurprisingly, given Greenwald's opinion of the Bush Administration, this topic has come up before.

Is the defendant still allowed to take the fifth?

The trial is the presentation of the evidence against him. Judge decide to take t to a court martial or not.

Someone mentioned earlier that when you take the oath, you lose certain rights. Now, I always believed that the American fighting man (or woman) was part of the old ideal of the Republic i.e a citizen in uniform, who would go back to the farm when the fighting was done or something like that. Wasn't this ideal one of the core tennents of the revolution a la George Washington resigning when the conflict was over? I thought this was still the case...