Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Security The Courts The Media The Military United States Your Rights Online

Bradley Manning Offers Partial Guilty Plea To Military Court 380

Posted by timothy
from the ok-but-you-had-it-coming dept.
concealment writes "During a pre-trial hearing in military court today, [alleged Wikileaks source Bradley] Manning's attorney, David Coombs, proposed a partial guilty plea covering a subset of the slew of criminal charges that the U.S. Army has lodged against him. "Manning is attempting to accept responsibility for offenses that are encapsulated within, or are a subset of, the charged offenses," Coombs wrote on his blog this evening. "The court will consider whether this is a permissible plea.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bradley Manning Offers Partial Guilty Plea To Military Court

Comments Filter:
  • by santax (1541065) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @09:52AM (#41917739)
    him finally coming out how he started WO2 and the Spanish inquisition? By the way they have treated him I am sure he is ready to confess those too.
  • Fascist bloodlust (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GameboyRMH (1153867) <gameboyrmhNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday November 08, 2012 @09:56AM (#41917767) Journal

    All the hardcore authoritarian fascists want him dead, I wonder if they'll get their wish. If so, I wonder if Adrian Lamo will feel any guilt at all for ending this guy's life for no fucking reason (attention? "Remember me? I'm still around, everyone!")

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Corbets (169101)

      All the hardcore authoritarian fascists want him dead, I wonder if they'll get their wish. If so, I wonder if Adrian Lamo will feel any guilt at all for ending this guy's life for no fucking reason (attention? "Remember me? I'm still around, everyone!")

      Right. Because it's Adrian's fault that Manning chose to distribute documents which he was clearly not authorized to distribute. Whether you think it's right or wrong for him to have distributed them, it's not like anyone can be under the illusion that Manning's actions would have been considered legal. He alone is responsible for what happens to him.

      • Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:5, Interesting)

        by h4rr4r (612664) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @10:10AM (#41917881)

        I think to some degree what he revealed should be taken into consideration. The military not having to deal with whistleblower laws is a bad idea.

        If what he revealed was worth it than a BCD is probably all he should get.

        • by HaZardman27 (1521119) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @10:13AM (#41917907)
          Allowing actions like this, even in the spirit of whistleblowing, would severely undermine the necessary order and discipline an effective military needs. It is certainly not the business of a private to determine what type of classified information should or should not be distributed.
          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            sez the good German...

            • Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:4, Informative)

              by Penguinisto (415985) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @01:55PM (#41920921) Journal

              Some problems with your post (setting aside the Godwin bit). I doubt that you had ever been in the military in any actual capacity, so I'll explain a few things here:

              * Unlike the Wehrmacht (to which you refer), the US military UCMJ requires soldiers, sailors, airmen, etc to disobey any unlawful order, and to report the order-giver to his or her superior officers. This means you are not required to perform clearly illegal actions, even if you are ordered to do so.

              * Distribution of classified information to the public which (potentially or actually) puts lives at deliberate risk is not legally or morally defensible.

              * The typical grunt has no full comprehension of the complexities and politics behind the classification of a given bit of information. Even most low-level officers have no complete picture as to why a given bit of information they have access to is classified. This is by design, and is called 'compartmentalization'.

              * There is already a mechanism in place for whistleblowing, usually referred to in most branches as the Inspector General. For whistleblowing actual crimes, you have JAG(Navy), AFOSI(Air Force), and similar. There is no indication I'm aware of that Manning tried to take these or any other in-place routes.

              * Manning had a lot of other options open to him if this was such a big, ugly moral dilemma. Some of these options include a formal request for transfer to another unit, discussion of his concerns with his first sergeant, and other similar actions. Given that the data is classified, if he wants out, the military will damned well make sure he gets out, if only to separate him from the classified data and processes. A perfect example? The transfer of USAF personnel away from nuclear weapons duty/work if they have a clearly stated moral objection to working with or around them. No military branch wants an individual around sensitive data and equipment if the guy has problems with being around it.

              Long story short, Manning screwed up all by himself, and has no one to blame but himself.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 08, 2012 @10:25AM (#41917999)

            On the other hand, corruption, incompetence and sheer lawlessness due to lack of oversight also severely undermine the necessary order and discipline an effective military needs. It is certainly not the business of the military to withhold information of that nature from their political masters.

            • Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:5, Interesting)

              by cdrguru (88047) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @10:35AM (#41918113) Homepage

              Clearly the military isn't withholding much, if anything, if State department diplomatic cables are discussing things.

              Why would you ever believe that the military is taking things upon itself when there is ample evidence that the government is aware and directing things?

              Now, in the new spirit of there not being any more terrorism in the world, at least there isn't if we do not call it terrorism, I suspect the military may have some views on the matter of being told to leave people unsupported in battle. The repercussions of this can certainly lead to the military simply ignoring the civilian government which hasn't really happened since the founding of the country. Having an administration that believes they can direct the military to "stand down" in the face of an armed enemy can certainly bring that about. Now who's fault might that be?

              Bradley Manning's "revelations" might have surprised some people, but clearly it did not surprise most people in governments around the world. Had it really been a surprise there would have been diplomatic consequences at the very least. So while it got some people incensed about what they didn't know their government was doing, it did no good and did not lead to anything changing. Except the rest of Bradley's life.

              • by mr.mctibbs (1546773) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @11:48AM (#41918941)
                If by "diplomatic consequences" you mean being forced to withdraw from Iraq, and starting riots in Egypt and Tunisia (Arab Spring happen that long ago we've already forgotten?), then yes it had some effect.

                If it weren't for Manning's revelations, we'd still have troops in Iraq, and the Arab Spring might have been a lot smaller than it turned out to be. If that isn't significant, I don't know what is.
              • Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:5, Informative)

                by HeckRuler (1369601) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @02:07PM (#41921161)

                Clearly the military isn't withholding much, if anything

                Clearly the military HAS WITHELD [wikipedia.org] information. Damning information. Information that would have made the war less popular, removed support, and ultimately caused us pull out and end the occupation. Oh look. That happened. We even voted in a guy [wikipedia.org] with that platform and didn't vote for the guy who wanted us to stick around getting shot at.
                But hey, I think I get what you're saying. The military isn't withholding information from the government. Yeah, that's probably more or less true. But the people would still like to know. You know, since this is a democracy, we're supposed to be the ultimate political masters here.

                I suspect the military may have some views on the matter of being told to leave people unsupported in battle.

                Depends on who and what sort of battle. I don't think our ground pounders cared two bits about keeping neighbors from killing each other in Iraq during the rampant sectarian violence [wikipedia.org]. Maybe the generals did, but they weren't the ones catching lead. None of them probably care enough about women's rights to keep the Taliban from being popular though.

                lead to the military simply ignoring the civilian government... Having an administration that believes they can direct the military to "stand down" in the face of an armed enemy can certainly bring that about.

                Well they didn't in Vietnam. We left and stopped a horrible clusterfuck of death and violence. Sadly, the north killed a whole hell of a lot of people when they invaded. That sectarian violence is a bitch isn't it? But after that the place largely got their shit in order. In short, the west propping up a regime that had no other support was a really bad idea. And stopping it was largely a success story of the peacenick hippies. Peace out dude.

                in the new spirit of there not being any more terrorism in the world, at least there isn't if we do not call it terrorism

                Dude, for a while there EVERYTHING was terrorism. Donating money to someone who knew someone who talked like a terrorist was terrorism. Suggesting that we should stop killing random people in the desert was terrorism. Trying to have a discussion about the definition of terrorism would get you suspected of terrorism. If that's swinging back to the region of sanity, it's a good thing.

                Bradley Manning's "revelations" might have surprised some people, but clearly it did not surprise most people in governments around the world.

                Oh, when you air their dirty laundry they are most certainly surprised. They never really expect to have to answer for their crimes.

          • Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:5, Interesting)

            by h4rr4r (612664) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @10:28AM (#41918029)

            So if some horrible atrocity occurs we should never find out because the few generals decided so?

            I would rather the military suffer some disturbance of order than there be no check at on them.

            • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

              by HaZardman27 (1521119)
              You're creating a false dichotomy. I said it's not the business of a private to determine when and when not to disseminate classified information. If the generals and staff officers are withholding information, then it's congress's job to remove them from their post and punish them as is fit.
              • by h4rr4r (612664) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @10:38AM (#41918139)

                It is the business of every soldier to protect this nation from threats foreign and domestic. It is in the oath of enlistment.

                How would congress even know about this? Do you think they would report such actions? Do you think congress knows about the renditions being performed? Do they know what secret prisons are used for torture?

                • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

                  by Anonymous Coward

                  You also swear you will obey the "orders of the officers appointed over me." On the other hand, the oath of commission doesn't include that phrase; officers are allowed (and expected) to question the actions and orders of those over them and escalate them up the chain if needed.

                  • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @11:41AM (#41918865) Homepage Journal

                    You also swear you will obey the "orders of the officers appointed over me."

                    Which comes after the oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution, and protect the nation from threats foreign and domestic. Contrary to popular belief, it is an ordered list.

                    By the oaths he swore, Manning did the right thing here.

                    • by Americano (920576) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @12:25PM (#41919429)

                      Sorry, his only options were "obey orders," or "leak millions of classified documents to Julian Assange"? That's a curiously short list of alternatives. How about... report it to the Inspector General (essentially, "internal affairs" for the military), or up his chain of command, and failing any action from any of them, end with:

                      "Dear President Obama, Senators Pelosi, Reid, Speaker Boehner, and other honored Senators and Representatives of the Armed Services committee:

                      My name is PFC Bradley Manning. I am a soldier attached to the 101st Some Unit as an intelligence analyst. In my role as an intel analyst, I see many classified documents, some of which have led me to conclude that a number of illegal actions are being taken by our military personnel during combat patrols and other operations in the Iraq and Afghanistan areas of operation. As you no doubt understand, I cannot provide copies of the documents in this letter, but I would offer some basic descriptions of scenarios I feel are in violation of law, and can provide you with document identifiers for you to request the documents yourselves, or would be happy to meet with you or your qualified representatives and review these documents at that time.

                      Some example situations:
                      On date X, location Y, Army personnel did Action Z which I believe violates our rules of engagement and may contravene Geneva Conventions.
                      On date X, location Y, a joint Marine / Army patrol reported Action Z, which I believe to be illegal. ... List Continues...

                      I have attempted to bring this issue to my chain of command in the following ways, and it has met with stonewalling and been ignored:
                      -- Date X, letter to Officer Y, outlining same details.
                      -- Date X, letter to Officer Y, outlining same details. ... List Continues ...

                      Mr. President, Senators, Representatives - my oath requires me to uphold the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic - and I believe that some of these actions are against the law, and pose a grave threat to our Constitution. I am writing to you to expose these issues so that you can take appropriate action to correct a terrible wrong and end that threat.
                      Sincerely,

                      PFC Bradley Manning."

                      You think a letter like that would be completely ignored, especially if he "accidentally leaked" a copy of it to a couple major news outlets, even Wikileaks? If they have Dates & locations, how hard is it for a couple journalists to start digging and saying, "whoa whoa whoa, we have some strong evidence that a bunch of Army soldiers kicked in the door, raped all the women, and then executed all the people in this house."

                      He wasn't stuck with a binary option - steal & release millions of classified documents to make his point, or just shut up and go along with what he considered to be war crimes. Even if his *motiviation* was correct, his actions were not. There are ways to whistleblow which would make it impossible for the government to ignore the issue, without actually copying the entire database of classified materials and releasing it unedited to Wikileaks.

                      Any argument that there were only 2 options available to him is completely false, and to suggest that he was right to disregard the numerous measured responses he could have pursued and go straight to the "nuclear" option is a little ridiculous.

                    • This isn't a question of a list, but of methods and goals.

                      There is a correct method for addressing any problem, which is "to question the actions and orders of those over them and escalate them up the chain if needed" as AC said above.

                      If his goal is to fix a problem, he needs to use the correct method.

                      Voice of experience -

                      If you work for an abusive boss, telling them about it doesn't do any good. Often, it just makes things worse.

                      If you work for an abusive boss within a corporation that protects its management staff at all costs, going up the chain of command will only result in making your own life miserable. In such cases, the only viable option you have is to circumvent the chain of command and report the abuses to an outside, third party for resolution.

                      Besides, as far as I'm aware, no one

                    • by Americano (920576)

                      How do you know he didn't take it up the chain of command? Because his superiors claim he didn't?

                      I don't know that. I do know that nowhere in all the very high profile coverage of the case has anybody suggested he did any such thing, including PFC Manning himself. If he or his lawyer would like to release information documenting his efforts to take this issue up the chain of command, I'd be happy to review it, and adjust my opinion accordingly.

                      As in, the same superiors who gave access to shit-tons of top

                • Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:5, Interesting)

                  by darkstar949 (697933) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @11:35AM (#41918811)

                  How would congress even know about this? Do you think they would report such actions? Do you think congress knows about the renditions being performed? Do they know what secret prisons are used for torture?

                  There is a reason that the various branches of the US military have inspector generals and a part of their job is to ensure that such things do not happen. So the US militiary effectively uses the same system that polices forces (i.e. internal affairs) as the check to ensure that gross abuses don't occur. Also, there is a whisleblowing program [wikipedia.org] that is fairly well documented that should also be used to filter such abuses back to those who are in a position to do something about it.

                  • by h4rr4r (612664) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @11:49AM (#41918951)

                    We know how well that works for police. They never get away with crimes, ever.

                    • by Bryansix (761547)

                      We know how well that works for police. They never get away with crimes, ever.

                      Quote for Truth. When the Police get investigated they get put on paid leave, then they have Unions which work to make sure the least amount of information is released and a Police Chief whose best interest it is in to get the name of the office cleared etc. etc. Its a system ripe for abuse.

              • by Nadaka (224565) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @10:46AM (#41918243)

                And congress failed in its duty.

                It is the business of a true patriot to expose the corruption within the system when the system fails to deal with it.

                • by Dan93 (222999) <danielonolan@@@gmail...com> on Thursday November 08, 2012 @01:43PM (#41920689)
                  He didn't even try to work within the system, he went completely around it, which something that you just don't do in the military. He didn't even try to go up the chain of command. The inspector generals exist for a reason. And failing that, he could have gone all the way to the President if need be. Instead, he gave the documents to someone else - documents that he knew were classified, but had no idea just what was on them. He knew that they could contain information that put american lives at risk, as well as the lives of anyone working with the military.
              • by Hatta (162192) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @11:30AM (#41918745) Journal

                I said it's not the business of a private to determine when and when not to disseminate classified information. If the generals and staff officers are withholding information, then it's congress's job to remove them from their post and punish them as is fit.

                It's not the business of a private. But when the generals and congress have both failed, we should be thankful that a mere private decided to put his life on the line and do the right thing.

              • by dkleinsc (563838) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @11:34AM (#41918781) Homepage

                I said it's not the business of a private to determine when and when not to disseminate classified information.

                If I'm not mistaken, it is the business of anyone in the military to refuse to follow illegal orders, report those orders to superior officers, and go around superior officers to report the misconduct to another authority (e.g. the Inspector General) if the superior officers refuse to do something about it. Not everything Manning released falls under this, but a lot of it was classified not because it would compromise national security (which is supposed to be the standard) but because it is embarrassing and/or incriminating to those who decided to classify it. Which means it was illegally classified. Which means that a private is not supposed to respect that classification.

                And yes, by this argument, there's probably huge amounts of material that are routinely illegally classified within the US military and intelligence agencies. A lot of the US military (particularly officers) firmly believe that the only reason the US lost in Vietnam is that the public got wind of what was going on over there and "stabbed them in the back". Their solution to this problem is attempting to hide almost everything US troops are doing from the US public, only sending back clips that make good PR, and helpfully guiding reporters around so they see only what they're supposed to see.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            I dare say you would have a different opinion if he'd exposed rapes or murders perpetrated by soldiers but covered up. Or war crimes.

            I'd say that the release of the cables played a significant part in initiating the Arab Spring. Even if it was a "straw that broke the camel's back" situation. Unless we want to condemn the popular uprisings against corrupt and/or authoritation regimes then we have to take this into account.

            If other crimes have been exposed by the cables then again that should be taken into ac

          • by cmdr_tofu (826352) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @10:34AM (#41918095) Homepage

            What if he was exposing great illegality (which he probably was)? Let's say for instance Manning found hard evidence that George Bush planned 9/11? That's an extreme example of course, but would you say his duty to step in line as a soldier outweighed his duties as a US citizen and a human being to expose these hypothetical extreme crimes? If you believe a private should be an unthinking robot and allow his superiors to bury evidence of crimes they are commiting, I believe that you are taking an unreasonable stance.

          • by liquidweaver (1988660) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @10:35AM (#41918101)

            What other feedback mechanism is in place to prevent secrecy being used to just cover up rather than protect legitimately secret documents?

            I'm of the opinion that if you give anyone the power to declare information secret if will be abused to some degree X. What can be done to keep X as small as possible while still protecting real secrets?

            I don't think there is a simple answer. While Bradley Manning's alleged actions are illegal and there should be punishment, the secrecy system has no practical safeguards right now - so in general I have a hard time saying that those actions had an overall negative effect for my country.

          • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @10:39AM (#41918159)

            It is certainly not the business of a private to determine what type of classified information should or should not be distributed.

            Not sure what the word is in the military, but no matter what they say, it is everyone's responsibility to follow their own morals regardless of what their orders are. If Manning felt that this was something the public must know, then it was absolutely his business to decide that, ethically speaking.

            Obviously that's not a valid reason to suspend his punishment, you're right that discipline must be upheld in the military. Just pointing out that discipline and personal morals have a balance that must be considered. If you don't want a private to leak information that he feels the public should be aware of, either don't give it to the private or don't do things he's likely to consider immoral.

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            Allowing actions like this, even in the spirit of whistleblowing, would severely undermine the necessary order and discipline an effective military needs. It is certainly not the business of a private to determine what type of classified information should or should not be distributed.

            I strongly agree. Having worked as a civilian employee of the US military right after graduating college I can assure everyone that there is no way Manning could have failed to realize his actions were at best illegal and at worse treasonous. My feeling is that the US government by consistently refusing to ask for the death penalty in spying cases (essentially this is a spying case where he provided information to an outside entity that caused harm to the US government) has encouraged people to continue t

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by pgdave (1774092)

              I believe very strongly that Manning should be facing the death penalty simply to send a message to the military that if you do this and get caught, you may die for it.

              Ah, the smell of fascist blood lust in the morning...Don't like what someone did? Just kill them. It makes you feel manly.

            • Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:4, Informative)

              by breech1 (137095) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @11:09AM (#41918457)

              My feeling is that the US government by consistently refusing to ask for the death penalty in spying cases [...] has encouraged people to continue to try to get away with this.

              The US gov't could seek the death penalty for spying cases, but chooses not to. The reason is that a caught spy will eventually talk about why they did it, and who they were working with, if the death penalty isn't an option. That information is far more valuable than naively "trying to send a message". (Whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent is a separate argument. The intelligence officers only care about determining why the spying occurred and who the handlers were.)

            • by swillden (191260) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Thursday November 08, 2012 @11:29AM (#41918729) Homepage Journal

              Having worked as a civilian employee of the US military right after graduating college I can assure everyone that there is no way Manning could have failed to realize his actions were at best illegal and at worse treasonous.

              Having been a member of the US armed forces (SSgt USAFRES) I can assure everyone that Manning may well have believed that he had a duty to disclose information he thought the military was illegally concealing from the public, and there are circumstances in which he'd have been absolutely right. Every member of the armed forces is taught that they have a duty to disobey illegal orders. However, I think his decision to give it to Wikileaks rather than to take it to some element of the government who would play a watchdog role (e.g. a congressman opposed to the war) does cast doubt on the purity of his intentions -- or at least on his judgment.

              • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @11:49AM (#41918957) Homepage Journal

                However, I think his decision to give it to Wikileaks rather than to take it to some element of the government who would play a watchdog role (e.g. a congressman opposed to the war) does cast doubt on the purity of his intentions -- or at least on his judgment.

                Considering the federal government's recent track record, I would counter that trusting any Congressperson to come forward and make the info public would be the real folly of judgement.

          • Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Okian Warrior (537106) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @10:45AM (#41918235) Homepage Journal

            Allowing actions like this, even in the spirit of whistleblowing, would severely undermine the necessary order and discipline an effective military needs. It is certainly not the business of a private to determine what type of classified information should or should not be distributed.

            That's certainly true.

            Now consider the relative values. You can have a well-disciplined and effective military, but is fascism more important than discipline?

            Several recent armies were well disciplined and private, and yet committed numerous and long-term monstrous acts against humanity. At the time of the second world war, there were "rumors" (reports? whatever) of concentration camps and mass executions, but no actual proof.

            Without checks and balances - without placing an armies actions in front of it's people - there's nothing to stop them from becoming a directed mob of savages. I'd certainly like to know what our military is doing, it speaks to our ethics as an American people. Our military represents us to the world.

            And for the record, officers swear an oath to the constitution. Manning was bound by oath to obey a higher power than the military command. You might argue before the act whether something should be made public or not, but recent events has validated his decision.

            Yes, he's a war hero. That he didn't act in the way you would have, or in a manner that you would have liked, is immaterial.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Allowing actions like this, even in the spirit of whistleblowing, would severely undermine the necessary order and discipline an effective military needs. It is certainly not the business of a private to determine what type of classified information should or should not be distributed.

            Actually it is. It used to be that the officers always had responsibility for the actions of his troops and because of this privates could just mindlessly follow orders. A few decades ago it was figured out that this system doesn't work and it allows for a lot of war crimes to happen.
            Becaue of this the geneva convetion specified that privates had a responsibility to ignore illegal orders and if possible stop their officers when they commited war crimes. This is what Manning has acted on.
            If the U.S. had foll

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            "I was just following orders" Is not a valid defense for evil acts. Neither should be "it was top secret".

            captcha:embassy (ooo, creepy)

          • by Afty0r (263037) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @11:08AM (#41918435) Homepage

            It is certainly not the business of a private to determine what type of classified information should or should not be distributed.

            A long time ago, it was expected that all military personnel should follow orders, rules and regulations, and that they would not be held accountable for their actions while doing so.

            Then, as a species, we grew up a little, and a number of events including Nuremberg helped us to realise that this was not a healthy attitude.

            Now, in 2012 many people still believe it is "right" to lie about and cover up the killing of innocent people. I hope, as a species, we will continue to grow and to understand that this is unacceptable. When it comes to the murder of non-military personnel, being part of such a cover-up should be regarded as an abuse of human rights (it is, after all, a conspiracy to hide a crime against humanity) and military personnel *should* have whistleblower rights, in a limited range of circumstances.

            Russ

          • by ljw1004 (764174)

            Already there are circumstances under which a military officer is not only justified but also OBLIGED to disobey a legal order. (one that he personally feels is immoral and unjustified).

            But this doesn't seem to undermine the necessary order and discipline. Why not?

          • by swillden (191260)

            It is certainly not the business of a private to determine what type of classified information should or should not be distributed.

            That depends on the information.

            It is the duty of every member of the US military, regardless of rank, to disobey illegal orders. I think a strong argument can be made that any order to conceal, for example, evidence of war crimes, would be illegal.

            Granted that in such cases giving the data to Wikileaks wouldn't have been the right response. Giving it to a congressman, for example, would have been an appropriate choice, assuming the private in question didn't believe running it up the chain of command

          • It is certainly not the business of a private to determine...

            Sir, you are wrong. In the United States Military, and the Army specifically I was made to recite our creeds every day through training. The Army training regimen consists of instilling belief in the 7 core values: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage. Can you honestly tell me that what Bradley Manning did was not the embodiment of what he was trained for? As a vet I will tell you I respect him more than most of the rest of his chain of command. He wasn't perfec

        • by dywolf (2673597)

          The UCMJ exists for a reason. And if you know you're history, this isnt the first time that someone voluntarily and knowingly violated an article (or 6) of the UCMJ, knowing it would end their career, even result in prison time, because they felt compelled to. Many time such individuals dont even contest the charges. Usually in the nature of refusing to obey an order, deeming it unlawful, and taking it to courts martial; sometimes the presiding officer's have agreed, and sometimes disagreed.

          Manning stepping

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        He alone is responsible for what happens to him.

        So he is also responsible for the cruel and inhumane treatment during his 900+ days incarceration. Also responsible for what people might call torture? And he is responsible for not getting the right to a speedy trial?

      • by poetmatt (793785)

        Except that the total amount of proof of anything Manning has done at the moment, is ZERO. So way to strawman everything when he hasn't even had a single ruling from a judge.

        It is indeed Adrian's fault for things getting to this point - and not a morality strawman about whether it's right or not to distribute things when it hasn't even been acknowledged that it is him.

        Not to mention that this is a plea by both sides to speed up the trial, not an admission of anything - it bears no weight in court and can be

        • by Corbets (169101)

          Except that the total amount of proof of anything Manning has done at the moment, is ZERO.

          You mean, except for the thing about him pleading guilty to charges? You know, described in that thing at the top of this page we call a summary?

          • Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:4, Informative)

            by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @12:01PM (#41919085) Homepage Journal

            Except that the total amount of proof of anything Manning has done at the moment, is ZERO.

            You mean, except for the thing about him pleading guilty to charges? You know, described in that thing at the top of this page we call a summary?

            You've never been charged with a crime by the government, have you?

            Lemme drop a little free-range wisdom on ya: The justice system is fucked. Often times, accused people are given 2 choices by prosecutors: plead guilty and get a lesser sentence, or fight to prove your innocence (yes, that's right, it's no longer 'innocent until proven guilty') and risk having the book thrown at you. It doesn't matter whether you're actually guilty or not, it's all just a farce to keep the money flowing through.

            Don't take my word for it, go steal a candy bar from Walmart* and enjoy the anal-raping courtesy of the US corporate court system.



            * Wal-mart always prosecutes. Always.

      • by Cruciform (42896)

        So he's guilty of copyright infringement? I thought that wasn't a crime on Slashdot.

    • All the hardcore authoritarian fascists want him dead, I wonder if they'll get their wish.

      Then frustrate their wishes by forcing him and Assange to stand trial instead. There's no death penalty for this offense, and that way he gets to present his side in court.

  • by danhaas (891773) on Thursday November 08, 2012 @12:23PM (#41919395)

    Nobody said martyrdom should be easy. By its very definition, it is not.

    Bradley Manning did break his oath; he is guilty and will be punished accordingly. But what he did was, in the end, the right thing to do: he is a martyr of truth.

To understand a program you must become both the machine and the program.

Working...