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.

"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

 Crablezworth wrote:
And that's how not to support an argument.

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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
And that's how not to support an argument.

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?

Seriously?

I'm done. You have no interest in actually discussing this, you are just going on another anti-US tirade.

Have fun in your echo chamber.

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"

No death penalty, aiding the enemy would have given him life in prison. He's still facing 136 years I believe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Seriously?

I'm done. You have no interest in actually discussing this, you are just going on another anti-US tirade.

Have fun in your echo chamber.

-shrugs- what can I tell ya, I did my best to support my argument.

ps I don't think characterizing what I've said as a "tirade" is accurate.

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

ART. 104. AIDING THE ENEMY

Any person who--


(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

The gov didn't seek death penalty in the manning case.

 Jihadin wrote:
. Also why did he refuse to judged by his "Peers" if he was so "righteous"

Take a look at his peers in this thread and you would realize that he would have to be suicidal to be judged by them.

 d-usa wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
. Also why did he refuse to judged by his "Peers" if he was so "righteous"

Take a look at his peers in this thread and you would realize that he would have to be suicidal to be judged by them.

Very true. I believe he was on suicide watch at one point, but that's not uncommon when being held in solitary.

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 can see how people may view Snowden as a Whistleblower.

I cannot fathom how anyone with knowledge on the Manning case, can come to the same conclusion with him.

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]

 Jihadin wrote:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_death_row_inmates#United_States_Military

5 guys currently on death row, waiting to be executed.

Years sentenced: 1988, 1989, 2005 (x2), 2010.
Last military execution: 1961

So much for "time between sentencing and execution 2-4 years". Currently it is "time between sentencing and execution 3-25 years and counting"

 Sasori wrote:
I can see how people may view Snowden as a Whistleblower.

I cannot fathom how anyone with knowledge on the Manning case, can come to the same conclusion with him.

Do you see Daniel Elsberg as a whistleblower?

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
I can see how people may view Snowden as a Whistleblower.

I cannot fathom how anyone with knowledge on the Manning case, can come to the same conclusion with him.

Do you see Daniel Elsberg as a whistleblower?

Regardless of my opinion, I can certainly understand and see why people would view Daniel Ellsberg as a whistleblower.

This is not the case with Manning.

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

Crab I'm done with you. Your either unwilling, cannot comprehend, or ignoring the facts of Manning.

edit

Why is it so hard to comprehend UCMJ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm also getting the feeling that some people here think Benghazi is a phony scandal to with their train of thought

 Jihadin wrote:

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.

 Jihadin wrote:

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

 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.

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
All this talk of a 120 year sentence is pretty damn excessive.

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?

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.

 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!