Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts The Military United States

Bradley Manning's Court Date Finally Set 523

Posted by Soulskill
from the speedy-is-subjective dept.
bs0d3 writes "Bradley Manning has finally been scheduled for a day in court. On December 16, he will have an Article 32 hearing (military pre-trial). Private Manning has been in jail for one and half years. The Article 32 hearing will begin at Fort Meade, Maryland. The primary purpose of the hearing is to evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of the government's case, as well as to provide the defense with an opportunity to obtain pretrial discovery. Further trial dates and locations are still unknown."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bradley Manning's Court Date Finally Set

Comments Filter:
  • spin. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21, 2011 @04:48PM (#38128460)

    The primary purpose of the hearing is to instill fear into anyone else who might have access to sensitive information the public might want to know.

  • Honer him! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dbasch (539559) on Monday November 21, 2011 @04:48PM (#38128464)
    Give his hero ass a medal!
  • About fucking time (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Aryden (1872756) on Monday November 21, 2011 @04:48PM (#38128470)
    cause being held without due process is full of awesome in this country.
  • U.S.Awesome! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sgt scrub (869860) <saintium@yahoo.cMENCKENom minus author> on Monday November 21, 2011 @04:49PM (#38128480)

    In the U.S a 1.5 year prison sentence is just part of a speedy trial.

  • Re:Idealy Idealist (Score:5, Insightful)

    by orphiuchus (1146483) on Monday November 21, 2011 @04:57PM (#38128580)

    And when you get a clearance they make goddamn sure that you understand what happens if you misuse it.

  • by RingDev (879105) on Monday November 21, 2011 @04:58PM (#38128618) Homepage Journal

    In the civilian world, yes. In the military world, he could stand before a general, or a tribunal, or a jury of his peers, which is to say, a bunch of active duty military guys who have been told over and over for the last year that this guy is evil.

    -Rick

  • by Aryden (1872756) on Monday November 21, 2011 @05:00PM (#38128632)
    Court martial is very much a criminal prosecution. They got away with avoiding the 6th amendment by not filing charges against him until they felt like it. he's been kept as a prisoner of war for 1.5 years so that they could circumvent the rest of the constitution and federal laws.
  • by orphiuchus (1146483) on Monday November 21, 2011 @05:01PM (#38128650)

    I know a lot of people here like to live in a fantasy land where the military doesn't need any secrets, but the fact is that some things are secret for good reason. Troop deployment schedules for instance, can allow the enemy to effectively target less experienced units and kill more Americans.

    Manning had this all explained to him when he got his clearance, and assuming that he really is guilty, he deserves what is coming to him. Like it or not, loose lips really do sink ships.

  • Re:Honer him! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by anagama (611277) <obamaisaneocon@nothingchanged.org> on Monday November 21, 2011 @05:04PM (#38128690) Homepage
    A peace prize is in order if indeed Manning is the leaker. Without the released cables, Obama would have been able to convince Iraq that our troops should have stayed longer. Because of the leaks, Obama failed in his warmongering:

    That cable was released by WikiLeaks in May, 2011, and, as McClatchy put it at the time, âoeprovides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi.â The U.S. then lied and claimed the civilians were killed by the airstrike. Although this incident had been previously documented by the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the high-profile release of the cable by WikiLeaks generated substantial attention (and disgust) in Iraq, which made it politically unpalatable for the Iraqi government to grant the legal immunity the Obama adminstration was seeking. Indeed, it was widely reported at the time the cable was released that it made it much more difficult for Iraq to allow U.S. troops to remain beyond the deadline under any conditions.

    In other words, whoever leaked that cable cast light on a heinous American war crime and, by doing so, likely played some significant role in thwarting an agreement between the Obama and Maliki governments to keep U.S. troops in Iraq and thus helped end this stage of the Iraq war

    http://www.salon.com/2011/10/23/wikileaks_cables_and_the_iraq_war/singleton/

  • by Hatta (162192) on Monday November 21, 2011 @05:08PM (#38128740) Journal

    Some things are secret for good reason. Very little in what Manning released had any reason to be secret. On the whole, the country is better off having this information public than not.

  • Re:spin. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LordLimecat (1103839) on Monday November 21, 2011 @05:08PM (#38128750)

    Spin is when someone takes a military personel's violation of his oaths and betrayal of trust as something that should be ignored or lauded. Of course the public wants to know military secrets, that doesnt make it any less against the law, and any less deserving of a military trial.

    Mod me down, but ask yourself this-- if this were 1863, and manning has spilled military secrets to the papers, do you think
    A) he would have been given a medal
    B) he would have languished in a cell until after the war was over, given a trial, and hung as a traitor?

    This is neither new, nor surprising. When you get cleared to handle sensitive information, and when you are in the military no less, violating that trust has really serious implications.

  • Re:spin. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nadaka (224565) on Monday November 21, 2011 @05:09PM (#38128762)

    Bradley Manning is a true American patriot and hero for exposing the malignant corruption infesting and perverting the great American ideal.

  • by Aryden (1872756) on Monday November 21, 2011 @05:10PM (#38128772)
    He was held as a prisoner of war / enemy combatant. He was not afforded the rights dictated by the constitution. The UCMJ treats him as a POW and revokes those rights that would otherwise apply to normal military personnel.
  • by Quila (201335) on Monday November 21, 2011 @05:17PM (#38128874)

    I may have some sympathy if he knew of specific illegal acts and divulged the information about those acts in order to bring about justice.

    But that's not what he did. He just released a huge amount of classified information, some of which could get people killed.

  • by Nidi62 (1525137) on Monday November 21, 2011 @05:23PM (#38128944)

    Some things are secret for good reason. Very little in what Manning released had any reason to be secret. On the whole, the country is better off having this information public than not.

    Except, as a private in the US military, that was not Bradley Manning's job or duty to decide. 1 person never has the right to make a decision like that, especially one that had the possibility of costing other people their lives (Notice I said possibility, not did) And there was no way he could have known what was in those thousands of documents. If he did, then he was spending all his time reading them instead of his job, in which case he is still guilty of dereliction of duty. He is already guilty of accessing documents without authorization. These 2 charges alone probably merit forfeiture of pay and rank, as well as several years imprisonment and a dishonorable discharge. And he is probably lucky that he is being tried at court martial. Besides being supplied legal counsel that is an officer (and therefore bound by oath to the law, oath as an officer, and by honor to do the best job they can) and more than likely working solely on this case, a defendant in court martial can also bring in civilian counsel and assistance. Especially in a high profile case like this, his right are probably more protected in a court martial than in a civilian court.

  • Re:spin. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The Creator (4611) on Monday November 21, 2011 @05:26PM (#38128984) Homepage Journal

    violation of his oaths

    Against all enemies, foreign and domestic

    How would you interpret the bolded part? Do you think it means unconditional loyalty even when the state begins to commit atrocities?

  • by Hentai (165906) on Monday November 21, 2011 @05:27PM (#38129000) Homepage Journal

    If the alternative was being held naked in a jail cell with no access to books, internet, human conversation, or anything other than standing at attention and sleeping?

    Yes, I think I'd rather they take me behind the tool shed already.

  • by mosb1000 (710161) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Monday November 21, 2011 @05:28PM (#38129010)

    Of course the public wants to know military secrets, that doesnt make it any less against the law, and any less deserving of a military trial.

    Yes it does. Laws are written around public opinion. Also, there's whistleblower protection. If you are uncovering corruption, rather than giving aid to the enemy, your actions are not criminal. That may well be the case here. The information released was not of a tactical nature. It didn't disclose troop strengths and numbers, positions, weaknesses, or anything like that. Rather, it exposed a bunch of dirty laundry. Information that shouldn't be classified.

  • Re:spin. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by itchythebear (2198688) on Monday November 21, 2011 @05:33PM (#38129078)

    Against all enemies, foreign and domestic

    I bolded a different part for you. It isn't about who Bradley Manning thinks is an enemy, it's about who the U.S. government thinks is an enemy.

  • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Monday November 21, 2011 @05:34PM (#38129094)

    Military laws are different than civilian laws. When you sign up for the military, you agree to be subjected to the Uniform Code of Military Justice when you are on duty or deployed. It is related to US civilian laws, but not the same. So if you want to sign up to be a solider, you need to be aware you are held to a different legal standard. A simple example would be that insubordination is against the law in the military.

    Then there's the matter of revealing classified data. Military or not when you are given a security clearance, you agree to not reveal classified information. I don't mean they say "You agree to this," I mean you actually sign an agreement, an NDA. It is very much a full disclosure kind of situation in that you understand and agree not to reveal the things you'll be shown.

    So you can certainly say he did the morally right thing leaking the information, if you believe that (though I would then ask you to show what information leaked you believe was so important for the public to know) but you can't argue it was legal or that he didn't know it was illegal. Since it was done in military service, that also makes it a military trial.

  • by del_diablo (1747634) on Monday November 21, 2011 @05:35PM (#38129096)

    I keep hearing people saying that. Can you at the least link me to a news story about some squad of soliders that has gotten killed DIRECTLY because of the leaks?

  • by Java Pimp (98454) <(java_pimp) (at) (yahoo.com)> on Monday November 21, 2011 @05:35PM (#38129104) Homepage

    People with clearance do not have the authority to just decide something should be declassified and released publicly regardless of their reason for doing so. It does not matter if you feel the country is better off or not, who knows, it very well may be. It is not up to you or a random PFC to make that determination.

  • by LanMan04 (790429) on Monday November 21, 2011 @05:40PM (#38129192)

    But that's not what he did. He just released a huge amount of classified information, some of which could get people killed.>/b>

    [Citation Needed]

  • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Monday November 21, 2011 @05:41PM (#38129206)

    The defense generally wants as long as they can before trial for all kinds of reasons. As such you almost never see a speedy trial motion. The only time you'd be likely to see one is if an attorney was convinced his client was innocent and the state was dragging their feat. However that is fairly rare.

    Generally in a case where the defense would file a speedy trial motion the prosecution will drop the case rather than go to court and lose. I'm not saying it is always that way, but 99.999% of the time.

    In Manning's case his guilt seems to be pretty clear cut. Thus his lawyer is not going to be at all interested in pushing the trial quickly. He'll want as much time to pass as possible for a lot of reasons.

  • Re:spin. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21, 2011 @05:41PM (#38129210)

    Obviously you do not understand the Oath. It is each soldiers right, duty and obligation to determine that for himself.

    That's why "just following orders" is not a valid defense.

  • by ImprovOmega (744717) on Monday November 21, 2011 @05:41PM (#38129214)

    Yes it does. Laws are written around public opinion. Also, there's whistleblower protection.

    Not military law, which he is under. Military law lets you execute traitors and other fun stuff and it often very, very different than civilian law.

  • Re:spin. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by martin-boundary (547041) on Monday November 21, 2011 @05:41PM (#38129216)
    What makes 1863 such a good time for comparison? Social norms evolve over time. In 1863, women didn't have the right to vote, and one hundred years later blacks still didn't have equal civil rights. What might have gotten a death penalty or even a simple shot in the back yard without trial response in those days is no longer acceptable today. Should Manning be crucified today, because it was good enough for Jesus back in Roman times?
  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Monday November 21, 2011 @05:53PM (#38129380)

    let's not forget these leaks were a catalyst for the Tunisian uprising, which lead to the revolts in Egypt and Libya

    Since both countries are about to be taken over by hard-core Islamofascist groups (Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt) are you advocating then for a worse punishment?

    It's really a shame as I loved Egypt and the people there will great. They were poor but had a lot of freedom really, all of that gone soon...

  • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Monday November 21, 2011 @05:55PM (#38129410)

    some of which could get people killed.

    That sounds an awful lot like the argument used by the government during the pentagon papers trial (New York Times Co. vs. United States). How about showing us the innocent civilians, human rights activists, informants, etc. who have been killed as a result of the leaks?

    Meanwhile, Reuters has the video that shows its journalists being killed by a US helicopter strike. The people of the United States have been given a glance at their government's activities, which includes information on the enormous intelligence power that the DEA has amassed. In the middle east, the documents were a catalyst for revolutions that ousted tyrants from power.

    Manning broke the law, and it is hard to feel sympathy for someone who knew the danger and chose to leak the documents and videos anyway. However, the leak has been a boon for democracy and a reminder that the US government keeps far too much information secret.

  • Re:spin. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by liquidweaver (1988660) on Monday November 21, 2011 @05:55PM (#38129422)

    How do you know he violated his oaths?

    Oh shit, yeah - that's what a trial is for - my bad.

  • by Hatta (162192) on Monday November 21, 2011 @06:03PM (#38129516) Journal

    Except, as a private in the US military, that was not Bradley Manning's job or duty to decide.

    Whose duty was it to correctly classify documents? Why are they not being tried for dereliction of duty?

  • Re:spin. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Java Pimp (98454) <(java_pimp) (at) (yahoo.com)> on Monday November 21, 2011 @06:04PM (#38129524) Homepage

    Neither is releasing 100K classified documents just because maybe there might be something in there that might be incriminating. If you got specific evidence of something illegal there are proper ways to handle that. Publishing hundreds of thousands of basically unrelated secrets because someone might find something not so nice in there is not a soldier's right, duty and obligation.

  • Re:So wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by microbox (704317) on Monday November 21, 2011 @06:18PM (#38129672)

    Well too bad for Manning then he uncovered NOTHING while in the meantime delivering the enemy all kinds of juicy intelligence

    You've got your blinkers on there.

    Let me guess, your a jingoist?

  • by mosb1000 (710161) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Monday November 21, 2011 @06:30PM (#38129830)

    Some people would say that much of the information he released shouldn't have been classified in the first place. So, who is really the one misusing it?

  • He is the enemy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Fujisawa Sensei (207127) on Monday November 21, 2011 @06:33PM (#38129880) Journal

    Not even fucking close.

    If he could have attached each one of those documents to a specific crime, he might have had some moral ground to stand on. But instead he released as many classified documents as he could get his hands on.

    In spite of his self-righteous grandstanding, I think he was really just pissed that he was demoted and going to get kicked out for assaulting an officer and thought, and probably still thinks, that he'll get away with it in the long run.

  • Re:spin. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DeadCatX2 (950953) on Monday November 21, 2011 @06:36PM (#38129938) Journal

    To LordStrawcat

    You're the only person so far who mentioned Collateral Murder. Someone else mentioned the summary execution of Iraqi women and children by US troops who then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence. Another pointed out that we were pimping young boys to Afghani police recruits (it's called "bacha bazi", literally "boy play")

  • Re:Weak sauce (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DeadCatX2 (950953) on Monday November 21, 2011 @06:41PM (#38129988) Journal

    Would you people please READ instead of using talking points?

    US troops committed summary execution of Iraqi women and children, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence.

    DynCorp pimped young boys to Afghani police recruits ("bacha bazi").

    If that's a "big bowl of nothing", then I'd like a helping of "bullshit" to go with it.

  • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Monday November 21, 2011 @06:42PM (#38129992)
    How about the video of the airstrike that killed two journalists in Iraq? Or the information on how the DEA has vast signals intelligence capabilities that it can use in both foreign and domestic operations (which other member of the law enforcement/intelligence community can do that?)? Or the information on the US army executing civilians in Iraq?

    At the very least, the citizens of the United States should be aware of what their government is doing. How can we decide who to vote for if we do not even know what our government is up to?
  • Re:spin. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LordLimecat (1103839) on Monday November 21, 2011 @06:50PM (#38130084)

    And yet there remains a chain of command. Manning can take a risk and go by his own morality, thats true; but to expect the military not to try him in a military court is absolutely insane. A huge part of letting this whole thing work is the fact that their remains consequences if you choose to defy orders for what you see to be the greater good (otherwise, you could never try a soldier for anything, ever).

    And Im still a little fuzzy on what specific atrocities were unveiled by the diplomatic cables that he leaked; care to clear that up?

  • Re:spin. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LordLimecat (1103839) on Monday November 21, 2011 @06:52PM (#38130126)

    So you want Manning punished for publishing classified info.

    I think thats what we're saying, yes.

    Do you want those who improperly classified info to be punished, as well?

    As that is neither a violation of oaths, nor military code, nor US law, I think the appropriate response is to determine who is at fault and hold them accountable through the normal democratic process.

  • Re:He's 23! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DeadCatX2 (950953) on Monday November 21, 2011 @06:55PM (#38130190) Journal

    People in Obama's administration have leaked classified info (bin Laden raid, anyone?)

    That info was actually TOP SECRET, and not just SECRET. So someone in Obama's administration is leaking more serious info than Manning did.

    Don't hold your breath waiting for that investigation, though.

  • Re:spin. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Java Pimp (98454) <(java_pimp) (at) (yahoo.com)> on Monday November 21, 2011 @07:04PM (#38130284) Homepage

    What specific criminal activity was he trying to expose before he released those documents? Were all 100k classified documents supporting that specific criminal activity? How much of those secrets had nothing to do with the specific criminal activity?

    If you have evidence of a specific crime, the whistleblower act might protect you somewhat for only that evidence. (IANAL). However, if you just decide to release a bunch of classified documents because you are pissed off at the government and you think there might be something in there to give them a black eye, well, you're on your own.

  • Re:spin. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Catbeller (118204) on Monday November 21, 2011 @07:35PM (#38130544) Homepage

    In 1863, he would have been instructed to kill runaway negroes and peaceful Indian villages. The past is not a moral high ground. If he had refused either one of those orders he would have been whipped and/or executed.

    His primary oath was to the Constitution of the United States of America, not to his superiors. If your superiors refuse to act on evidence of murder, and the chain of command knows damned well there was a murder, than what can you do? You can: 1) shut up, as three million others with the same clearance did, or 2) obey your oath to the people and the Constitution and expose the murderers and their abettor who are hiding behind the cloak of secrecy which was not intended for hiding criminals. Your choice.

    So who, exactly, are going to bring those who committed murder while representing us, and those who hid it, even with clear evidence, to their hangings?

  • Re:Weak sauce (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Catbeller (118204) on Monday November 21, 2011 @07:47PM (#38130626) Homepage

    The war was a lie. The President and Cheney declared that Iraq had attacked us. We went there and slaughtered 60K+ people outright, destroyed their electrical generator plants, water systems, gas lines, highways and outright stole their only national resource, the oil under their feet. We did it against the advice of almost every country on earth. We've led to the deaths and torture of almost two million people. We've emptied the country of its people as they fled a 120+ degree hell that now has no jobs, no air conditioning, barely food, and has a government consisting of the son of a bitch, Chalabi, who told Bush and Cheney anything they wanted to hear. He is now in charge of the oil fields and is essentially the secret service. We have installed another bunch of thieves, and you want to "bring our boys home", like they just fought Adolph. That country could not, would not, did not want to attack us. but it had lovely oil, and we stole it.

  • Re:spin. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Catbeller (118204) on Monday November 21, 2011 @07:51PM (#38130658) Homepage

    Yes. Read. You can google it. You can even watch the video, as it was released long ago by Wikileaks. He found evidence of US soldiers murdering a crowd - on camera. He tried for very long to get anyone in the chain of command to care. They did not. He did what he thought necessary when your command is hiding murders - he leaked it. You will refuse to look, as will his prosecutors and judges. This is a travesty.

  • Re:Weak sauce (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Catbeller (118204) on Monday November 21, 2011 @08:13PM (#38130802) Homepage

    1) Manning DID NOT release the documents, as you keep asserting. He transmitted them to Wikileaks, a trusted organization that kept secret whistleblowers secret.

    2) Wikileaks DID NOT RELEASE a blessed thing; the New York Times, the Guardian of London, and two other papers were given the block of documents, and they and they *alone* released what they thought safe to release after careful review, in which Wikileaks did not participate. If you have a problem, take it up with the newspapers, not Manning, not Wikileaks.

    3) The full documents got out after a reporter from the Guardian, I believe, idiotically published the password in an article. Go hang him.

    4) Manning and Wikileaks exercise due diligence and made sure that they released nothing harmful to the troops by giving control of the release to responsible reporters who were supposed to know what they are doing. That is precisely how responsible leakers have always done it.

    5) The reporters let us see that our troops had committed a savage murder, on camera, and the chain of command had refused to investigate.

    6) Large number of stories are now known to us about immoral and illegal acts committed by our government and others. One of those reports triggered the uprising called the Arab Spring. Perhaps you've heard of it.

    7) The US government in the past ten years has extended secret classifications to even mundane domestic reports. We even have secret laws that we cannot see, and no-fly lists that cannot be seen or contested. We have a country run in secret down to our police departments. A country that does not know, CANnot know, by law, what is actually happening in their name cannot possess the knowledge to govern themselves, making democracy itself impossible, even illegal. To become informed is to break the law. To break this blockade on truth is to spend 18 months in solitary without charge while they try to get you to falsely implicate others. To try to keep your country free and murderers tried for their crimes, they will lock you up for years without charges and then give you two weeks to get ready for trial after your mind is half gone and you haven't talked to a sane human for so long you can't construct sentences, let alone argue, against the full might of a national secrecy state that likes power and ain't about to give any up to lippy men with notions of right and wrong.

    This is not about oaths and laws. This is about what is right, and what is wrong. And knowing enough to understand the different.

  • by Bob9113 (14996) on Monday November 21, 2011 @08:13PM (#38130804) Homepage

    Except, as a private in the US military, that was not Bradley Manning's job or duty to decide.

    It is not his job until his superiors, whose job it is, fail in their duty. Then it is his obligation to do so. Our executive branch has chronically deprived the citizens of the information necessary for us to make informed decisions about how we wish our military to be employed. When those with standard authority are failing in their duty to keep us informed, it is only those without standard authority who can make the decision.

    It is a further failure to satisfy their oaths of office that we have ceased to recognize whistleblower protection. The authoritarians have decided that the notion of citizens as sovereigns is far too inconvenient, and that we can't handle the truth.

  • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Monday November 21, 2011 @08:25PM (#38130878)
    Reuters had a right to know what happened to their journalists; the fact that they were killed in war is not relevant. They asked politely, and the US army refused to give them the video. This is not a matter of defending the army's actions, or comparing their actions to more barbaric wars, it is a matter of whether or not people have a right to know how two journalists wound up dead.

    As for the DEA, it is not just that the US government has signals intelligence capabilities -- which it has had since World War I, by the way. It is that until recently, intelligence agencies either operated within US borders (e.g. the FBI) or beyond US borders (CIA, NSA, etc.). Now we have the DEA, which can operate inside or outside of the United States, which has more sophisticated signals intelligence capabilities than the FBI, and which has been pressured by "cooperative" governments to assist in the surveillance of political opponents. This is made worse by the fact that the DEA is not charged with protecting our national security in any way, shape, or form; the DEA is supposed to enforce drug laws.

    At the end of the day, people in a democracy have a right and a need to know what their government is doing. This is not about what the US government does or can do, it is about what the citizens of the US are permitted to know.
  • Re:spin. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pseudonym (62607) on Monday November 21, 2011 @08:32PM (#38130930)

    As that is neither a violation of oaths, nor military code, nor US law, I think the appropriate response is to determine who is at fault and hold them accountable through the normal democratic process.

    The "normal democratic process", in this case, seems to be that nobody is condemned or punished for exercising an power which exceeds constitutional authority if the other side of politics might like to use that power themselves.

    While all of the options for institutional recourse haven't yet been exhausted in this case, there are plenty of recent examples where they have been exhausted and essentially nobody was held accountable. Nobody, for example, will do hard time for the torture of prisoners. My hopes aren't high.

  • by Co0Ps (1539395) on Monday November 21, 2011 @08:42PM (#38131012)

    What makes this case so interesting is that he clearly broke the military rules and also clearly helped humanity through his actions and he never gained anything by doing it. He wasn't paid for doing it and he knew people would hate him and that he would be punished hard but he followed his ideals rather than doing what gains him the most personally. He believed in the right of the public to know what their country is actually doing and where their tax money goes.

    I see that some of you are angry with him and want him punished but when asked what he actually did wrong you can't argue further than him "breaking the rules" and "acting irresponsible". That he caused or will cause deaths is pure speculation. Maybe you are angry with him because deep inside you know you would never have the balls to pull this off by yourself? Because you know that you are that kind of person that curls into a ball when the authority beats you with a stick and tells you what to do and think. Because being told what to do and think follows naturally when you argue that the government has the right to censor and keep information secret from the public it serves.

    What makes this case so interesting is the reactions from people. It tells you a lot of what kind of person you are deep inside.

  • Re:Weak sauce (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21, 2011 @09:01PM (#38131150)

    Oil prices remaining high doesn't mean we didn't do it for "our" sake. It just means that you are not one of the "our."

  • Re:spin. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21, 2011 @09:16PM (#38131290)
    Your missing a bit of the line which makes it much more clear

    I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

    The oath isn't to protect the government it is to protect the constitution... who exactly do you think the domestic enemies of the constitution are?

  • Re:spin. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by the linux geek (799780) on Monday November 21, 2011 @09:41PM (#38131550)
    It's expected that if a soldier determines that his orders are illegal, he'll face a court-martial to prove it. A junior enlisted man can't just say "No, Captain, I don't want to do that," and expect "Hmm. Okay. I'll ask someone else." as a response.
  • Re:spin. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Nursie (632944) on Monday November 21, 2011 @09:45PM (#38131578)

    IMHO - routine classification of banal data.

    Governments (including the military) should not be hiding things from their people as a matter of course. It adds to the general picture of subterfuge and malice against their own people.

  • Re:spin. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LordLimecat (1103839) on Monday November 21, 2011 @10:14PM (#38131806)

    Rather than railing about modding conspiracies and whatnot, can someone please give a specific, google-able example of what we were supposed to see in the leaks?

    Thats really all I was asking for. I have no vested interest in government corruption being hidden; I simply think that 90% of the people on slashdot are unable to simply let facts speak for themselves and instead have to resort to hyperbole, massive spin, and tenuous accusations to prove their point, reality be damned.

    Just a heads up, since this seems to bug you so much-- every time someone leaps to accuse the US government of something, and then it turns out their claim was 90% bullshit, all further such claims have their credibilty hurt. Years of seeing this crap on slashdot have made me realize that as messed up as the government might be, its still a sure thing that most of the accusations leveled against it are bogus and perpetrated by people who have an axe to grind and dont really care if reality is more nuanced than "government is bad" or "leaks are good".

  • Re:spin. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by C0R1D4N (970153) on Monday November 21, 2011 @10:23PM (#38131864)
    When the US isn't divulging that information to the public, it is an issue yes.
  • Re:spin. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rtb61 (674572) on Tuesday November 22, 2011 @02:54AM (#38133110) Homepage

    It is if just one document demonstrates evidence of criminal malfeasance that was being ignored. Apparently there were many more documents that demonstrated criminality and collusions to hide and commit more crimes.

    That the administration that purposefully hid existing and ongoing crimes was all to self evident. What is even worse is after the legitimate release of those documents and the evidence of criminal activity they disclose, virtually nothing has been done to prosecute those individuals breaking laws.

    The person who released those documents is entitled to make claim that they were adhering to the principle of law and the requirements of their oath to ensure justice was pursued. No one is ever a slave to the criminality of the temporary supervisor, every individual is always bound by their own sense of justice and morality.

    Also it is abundantly clear in this case that the US military did purposefully and wilfully deny Bradley Manning his rights as a citizen, did knowingly and with intent physically and mentally abuse him in order to criminally extend the case against others and made only token attempts to adhere to the law months after the arrest and detention of Bradley Manning during which time they attempted to manufacture a case. Based apparently on the unsubstantiated betrayal of "Wired Magazine" whose focus was on profits not justice and Adrian Lamo and known criminal employed by "Wired Magazine" for dubious reasons.

    So was Wired Magazine involved in a for profit attempt at entrapment. Did Adrian Lamo himself actual conspire to obtain and release the records (already having a record for criminal computer hacking. Did "Wired Magazine" and Adrian Lamo conspire to shift the charges from themselves to Brian Manning. So was Wired Magazine the betrayer of the worst order or did they collude in criminal activity and then seek to shift the blame to a pasty, either way "Wired" sucks ass' let them know what you think of them http://www.wired.com/about/feedback/ [wired.com].

  • Re:spin. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mgf64 (1467083) on Tuesday November 22, 2011 @05:43AM (#38133670) Homepage
    The other leaks are about torture, execution of civilians (I find the distinction between citizens and non citizens disgusting but yes, US citizens as well) without due process, involvement of the US in interference with due process and democratic processes of allies (in cases regarding mass murder and war crimes in which the US were involved), trying to rig justice, knowing (and condoning) pollution of poor countries in Africa (the kind of pollution which causes death), corruption, condoning of corruption, small things such as sexual child abuse during "peace operations" and "exporting democracy". Why did they decide to classify instead of PROSECUTE THE GUILTY?

Do molecular biologists wear designer genes?

Working...