Bradley Manning (WikiLeaks Source) Given Hearing After 2 Years In Jail 369
TrueSatan writes "Finally, Bradley Manning's military court case starts. He's only had to wait 2 years to be heard. Manning claims that while remanded in custody in Iraq he 'passed out due to the heat' and 'contemplated suicide.' The United Nations special rapporteur on torture found Manning's detention was 'cruel and inhuman.' Manning wants the case against him to be dismissed because his pre-trial punishment was so severe. Manning's attorney, David Coombs, earlier released an 11-page letter detailing the conditions of Manning's confinement. Manning offered guilty pleas to minor charges, but not to spying, aiding American enemies or treason, and those pleas have been accepted by the judge."
This is truly a difficult situation (Score:3, Interesting)
One one had so much transparency has come from this but on the other so many terrible things COULD have happened. What needs to happen from this is a NON-military group be created to act as a place where individuals within the military can report situations without the public seeing everything. That group would then be charged to release appropriate information and act on those responsible for illegal acts.
The military is supposed to have these mechanisms internally but it doesn't work at this level.
Re:This is truly a difficult situation (Score:5, Interesting)
"The mass surveillance and mass interception that is occurring to all of us now who use the internet is also a mass transfer of power from individuals into extremely sophisticated state and private intelligence organizations and their cronies," he says. Assange also discusses the United States’ targeting of WikiLeaks. "The Pentagon is maintaining a line that WikiLeaks inherently, as an institution that tells military and government whistleblowers to step forward with information, is a crime. They allege we are criminal, moving forward," Assange says. "Now, the new interpretation of the Espionage Act that the Pentagon is trying to hammer in to the legal system, and which the Department of Justice is complicit in, would mean the end of national security journalism in the United States." [includes rush transcript]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the US tends to act like a surrogate government for Israel's interests
Re: (Score:3)
It's called the Office of Special Counsel [osc.gov]. The Office of Special Counsel provides "a safe conduit for the receipt and evaluation of whistleblower disclosures from federal employees, former employees, and applicants for federal employment."
Re:This is truly a difficult situation (Score:5, Informative)
It's called the Office of Special Counsel and it has demonstrated its complete and utter failure [examiner.com]. No whistleblower in their right mind would attempt to use it given its history:
While the Department of Justice relentlessly pursues, prosecutes and imprisons inconvenient whistleblowers, high-ranking bureaucrats who violate their rights are usually coddled by the system. The crooked wheel of justice crushes those at the lower levels of the government and pushes up criminals in high places.
Deleting hundreds of files pertaining to whistleblowing disclosures and complaints of retaliation and reprisal;
Rolling back protections for federal employees against discrimination based on sexual orientation;
Staffing key OSC positions with cronies who shared his discriminatory views;
Engaging in retaliatory activities against OSC staffers who opposed his wrongdoing;
Assigning interns to issue closure letters in hundreds of whistleblower complaints without investigation;
Intimidating OSC employees from cooperating with government investigators;
Misusing prosecutorial power for political purposes;
Reducing the backlog of cases pending at the OSC by 56% percent by closing cases without an investigation and destroying electronic files;
During the fiscal year of 2008, the OSC filed 0 corrective action petitions with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB);
During the fiscal year of 2008, the OSC obtained 0 stays from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB);
Bloch reassigned his perceived critics within the OSC to field offices across the country – giving them 10 days to accept, or else they'd be fired;
Bloch imposed retaliatory transfers upon OSC staffers he perceived as having a "homosexual agenda";
OSC under Bloch rarely recognized legitimate whistleblowers, typically only when the whistleblower has already prevailed elsewhere;
Re: (Score:3)
Your post (and that article) describe the failures of Scott J. Bloch, not OSC as a whole. Scott J. Bloch, pleaded guilty to criminal contempt of Congress and is no longer the head of OSC. Whether or not his sentence was fair or too light is another discussion.
The point is, he was investigated and prosecuted for his actions. The government takes corruption in its ranks very seriously and the OSC was set up to handle just that. Even those at OSC are not immune to prosecution.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called the Office of Special Counsel [osc.gov]. The Office of Special Counsel provides "a safe conduit for the receipt and evaluation of whistleblower disclosures from federal employees, former employees, and applicants for federal employment."
The law protects whistleblowers, the question is whether Manning is a whistleblower. A whistleblower is someone who tells the public or the authorities about corrupt or illegal behavior. Little if any of what Manning exposed qualifies as corrupt or criminal, so he's not protected as a whistleblower. Even the most famous release, the "collateral murder" video of an Apache attack helicopter slaughtering journalists in Iraq, wouldn't qualify because it was an accidental killing; it doesn't even qualify as negl
Re:This is truly a difficult situation (Score:5, Informative)
Little if any of what Manning exposed qualifies as corrupt or criminal
Yeah, right: You dont count anything in this short list [eff.org] as corrupt or criminal?? If so, your either a troll, a shill or grossly uninformed... take your pick.
... likely outcome (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:... likely outcome (Score:5, Insightful)
His pretri detention was done in accordance with military law which differs from civilian in a number of ways, so even though his trial was not started as quickly as normal or that things were rough in Iraq may well have no impact on the outcome.
The UCMJ is very clear: military personnel do not relinquish their constitutional rights. Yes, military law is different, but they're still required to have a speedy and public trial, and are still prohibited from engaging in cruel and unusual punishment. Manning has a strong argument that both of those were violated.
Re:... likely outcome (Score:4, Insightful)
You are both correct and incorrect. Service members do relinquish SOME constitutional rights. Most notably the right to free speech. In some circumstances the right against double jeopardy does not apply either (you can be tried in a civilian court (or foreign court), and then be tried under the UCMJ for the same offense if the military chain of command feels it is warranted). Granted, USUALLY the chain of command will not press charges against a service member if that service member is already charged with the crime in another jurisdiction.
In this case though, you are correct. PFC Manning has a right under Article 10 to "... inform him of the specific wrong of which he is accused and to try him or to dismiss the charges and release him.", along with an Article 13 right against "... be[ing] subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement upon the charges pending against him, nor shall the arrest or confinement imposed upon him be any more rigorous than the circumstances required to insure his presence, but he may be subjected to minor punishment during that period for infractions of discipline."
I do not know PFC Manning, and am unfamiliar with his case other than what I've read and seen in the news. I do not know if the Army is guilty of the allegations PFC Manning has brought or not (unfortunately, a good chunk of the media is demonstrably anti-Military in that they love soldiers, but hate the institution), so expecting evenhanded coverage here is, in my opinion, expecting too much. I hope that the Army is not guilty, as I'd like every 'i' to be dotted and 't' to be crossed when they lock him up for the rest of his life for what he's done.
Re:... likely outcome (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, there's a difference between being ordered to shoot some civilians in Vietnam, and deciding that you are going to break published classification rules that everyone is aware of, when no one's life is immediately at stake. And, more to the point, grabbing everything you can on the classified network, so you can release it en masse to a third party that isn't even run by people from your own country.
I'm sorry, but that's not heroism or "not following an illegal order", it's crass irresponsibility.
Re:... likely outcome (Score:5, Insightful)
I can accept the idea that Manning's actions were crass, irresponsible, stupid, and cowardly. Instead of seeing some injustice and leaking information of that injustice to the outside world, he chose to just grab everything he could and dump it. In retrospect, the information that he leaked was probably not dangerous to anyone, and it did, indeed, expose deep tentacles of corruption in the US government. However, there is no way that he read everything that he leaked, and he did, as you say, just send massive amounts of classified information -- most of which he had no idea of the content (because there was too much to read) -- to a foreign third party with a sometimes unclear agenda.
HOWEVER, none of this warrants torture [guardian.co.uk], and as an American I hope that Manning's lawyers win their trial. It is an unprecedented chilling effect and incomprehensibly unjust that, in the United States of America, a foolish whistleblower would be tortured to set an example for future whistleblowers. Torture of any kind, mental or physical, is clearly unconstitutional [wikipedia.org] and is unquestionably both anti-American (as in, it betrays the values that we base our country's existence on) and evil.
Re: (Score:3)
They mostly all (from the article) sounded uncomfortable...but torture?
The cells being hot, non AC in Iraq...might be the closest to torture...but I'm guessing NO prisons are air conditioned places like in the US. Hell, likely as not, I'm picturing the temperatures being about the same as what the ground troops experience daily while on patrol, but in the cell...at least it is in the shade?
But the rest of it....well, he
Torture? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:... likely outcome (Score:4, Interesting)
That is about the most uneducated, ignorant and apathetic comment I've read ina while. He was in the military, and there are strict guidlines governing classified documents. This includes punishments for breaking the rules. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) are rules above and beyond what the civilian population has to deal with. An individual is made aware of the rules and the consequences at the beginning. He knew what he was doing, and the consequences. He is lucky that all the prosecution is going for is a life sentence. In time of war, and with charges of treason, he could be put in front of a firing squad.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That is about the most uneducated, ignorant and apathetic comment I've read ina while. He was in the military, and there are strict guidlines governing classified documents. This includes punishments for breaking the rules. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) are rules above and beyond what the civilian population has to deal with. An individual is made aware of the rules and the consequences at the beginning. He knew what he was doing, and the consequences. He is lucky that all the prosecution is going for is a life sentence. In time of war, and with charges of treason, he could be put in front of a firing squad.
Does the UCMJ contemplate the use of torture ? Because torture is what Manning has had to endure for the last 2 years awaiting for a trial. This trial is a farce, as were farce the trials held in the old good Soviet Union.
code reds are not in the book just like where the (Score:3)
code reds are not in the book just like where the mess hall is at.
Re: (Score:3)
" He knew what he was doing, and the consequences. "
I highly doubt that. He was a fucking moron for talking to a known Government informant weazle. if he "knew what he was doing" he would have kept his mouth shut, Instead of bragging.
Re: (Score:3)
" He knew what he was doing, and the consequences. "
I highly doubt that. He was a fucking moron for talking to a known Government informant weazle. if he "knew what he was doing" he would have kept his mouth shut, Instead of bragging.
Not, "he knew what he was doing" as in, "He was a pro spy." More like, "he knew he was breaking the law."
Re:... likely outcome (Score:5, Insightful)
You're conflating two different issues. One is whether the conditions of his confinement were acceptable or appropriate, the other is whether he did something sufficiently inappropriate as to be considered treason.
Does a long confinement that might be considered torture change the events that led to the confinement? No. It may well be the thing that keeps Manning from facing a life sentence, since it helps place public favor more on his side.
As was mentioned before, there are channels by which unlawful acts can be reported without concern for retribution. It's not a perfect system, but it does work. Manning could have contacted the Adjutant General and made sure that both operational security and the law of war and human rights were respected, but he chose not to.
That was his decision, and none of us can say whether it was the most correct thing to do, morally, but we can definitely say that it was unlawful, according to the rules that Manning agreed to follow when enlisting in the US military.
Re: (Score:3)
"Agreeing to fight in an unjustified war" is a statement founded upon an opinion, and I appreciate that different people have different opinions on that matter. That would be a third issue, which is not part of what he is accused of. One might make
Re: (Score:3)
95% of all court martials come back "guilty". You have far less rights than you do in a civil trial, and "jury of your peers" is replaced by a panel of officers.
Article 32 hearings are notrious for being "not fair".
Re:... likely outcome (Score:4, Informative)
Re:... likely outcome (Score:5, Insightful)
What if the mission is wrong?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When you are in the military, you agree to follow the chain of command. If you don't like it, don't work for the military and then start complaining about the rules. You can sit outside and complain about the rules all you want and in fact many people do. Military doesn't have much problem with people sitting on the sideline complaining what the military does - it simply doesn't matter - their chain of command starts with the commander-in-chief, and they are given orders which go down the line, and resource
Re:... likely outcome (Score:5, Insightful)
> When you are in the military, you agree to follow the chain of command. If you don't like it, don't
> work for the military and then start complaining about the rules.
However you also trust that that chain of command is working in the best interests of the people. When it becomes obvious that they are not, like when they are not actively prosecuting incidents like we saw in collateral murder, then I would say they broke the trust first.
Re:... likely outcome (Score:5, Interesting)
When you're in the military you follow the chain of command and trust that your superiors are working in the best interests of your country.
If you find evidence your superiors are not, then you have the choice to exercise the soldier's prerogative: Shoot your commanders in the back, and face the consequences. You will give up your own freedom, but you will remove a commander who was harming your country.
Manning effectively shot his superiors in the back. Now he has consequences to face. A good soldier would stand up, say 'Yes, I did this and here are my reasons', then go to jail and hope that history vindicates him.
Re:... likely outcome (Score:4, Insightful)
Some of the things brought to light by the release are not just "morally wrong" in one 22-year-old's opinion, they're clearly unlawful. The UCMJ is pretty specific that not only do you have no requirement to go along with criminal orders, you have a responsibility to see the crime addressed.
When you are talking about crimes of the most pervasive sort, where support for committing them runs through the whole organization, "addressed" is clearly not going to happen with a report to the Lt 2nd Class you probably report to.
Face it: we'd never have heard of these crimes without Manning's actions. That we have heard of these crimes is a social good. There's just no getting around that.
If the results show that the harm done TO THE PUBLIC (not to some military or civilian employees who have been embarrassed) is small - and the Pentagon is clear in saying nobody was killed or injured from the released, the diplomatic fallout has been very minor - and the good done for the public is large, then any law that penalizes this action heavily is clearly not in the best interests of the public.
Re:... likely outcome (Score:4, Insightful)
"Just following orders" is no defence, morally or legally
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector [wikipedia.org]
You don't see this pursued very often. Many people choose a very different path when confronted with something they feel they have no control over. Some do go AWOL, some do drugs, some attempt suicide, and some succeed with suicide.[1]
We aren't privy to everything he thought when he was doing all of this. I've seen enough of the military to know that there could be a number of reasons that he could have come unhinged. We'll probably never know the full
Re:... likely outcome (Score:4, Insightful)
Good.... and you know what there is also a necessity for trust in the military and it's actions. When the military commits crimes and they cover them over in the name of national security then there is no trust. After all that if you still trust and believe, then you are a fool.
I'm sorry I don't believe in national security at all costs, because it's usually just bullshit that those at the top invent to cover over their own crimes and inadequacies.
Wiki leaks uncovered some things that we had every right to know. I mean after all it was all being done in our name right?
Re:... likely outcome (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, some level of trust is necessary. But are you suggesting that this trust would go so far as to include hushing up about innocent and indiscriminate civilian deaths, torture and inhumane treatment, and all of the other information that has been revealed by Manning and Wikileaks as a whole? And do you mean to suggest that there should be zero accountability or oversight or public awareness of all these horrible atrocities? It's this reason why I can't stand it when Americans constantly shout about supporting the troops. What kind of country is supposed to support this? And even worse, with no oversight or accountability! Instead, the military holds accountable those who reveal them, thereby implicitly condoning these actions.
It makes me sad.
Re: (Score:3)
You know, "support the troops" doesn't necessarily mean support what they're being forced to do. Our troops are people, just like any of us civilians; they're just in dangerous circumstances. There's lots of ways to support them without agreeing with what's happening.
Unless you think we should be punishing them for being there, which would be a terrible thing to suggest as many of them don't want to be there, but have no choice.
Re:... likely outcome (Score:5, Insightful)
A veteran here too.
I hold that the mission is currently wrong. It was wrong when I was in... I just didn't know it at the time. The fact is, we aren't fighting for our freedom. We're fighting for someone's continued profit and domination and to ensure that the US remains the dominant power and by extension, the people who use the US's power to their will. I think everyone, regardless of the side of the issue they may have, agrees that the US and the US military have exceeded its purpose under the constitution. "Private interests" are now the current mission of the US military and the US government.
So yes. The mission is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess: in your 'book' revealing the existence of concentration camps and gas chambers would be treason?
Article 10 speedy trial more rigorous than 6th (Score:4, Interesting)
You are absolutely right, the UCMJ has rules above and beyond what a civilian population has to deal with.
One of those is Article 10. http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/digest/VB3.htm [uscourts.gov]
Article 10 creates a more exacting, more rigorous requirement for a speedy trial than the 6th Amendment alone. United States v. Thompson, 68 M.J. 308
Mr. Manning has spent nearly 1000 days in pretrial confinement. The UN special rapporteur on torture has also found his treatment to be cruel and inhumane.
The government has broken many rules in their treatment of Mr. Manning (using a dentist as a psychiatrist? LOL!) It would be fair punishment for the government if the charges Mr. Manning has not yet pleaded guilty to are dismissed. Perhaps then the government would remember that it, too, has rules that it must abide by.
UCMJ also forbids unlawful command influence. (Score:5, Informative)
It also forbids unlawful command influence: [court-martial.com]
So everyone parroting "UCMJ! UCMJ!", I have a simple question for you. Do you want Bradley Manning immediately released, given the Commander-in-Chief's textbook case of unlawful command influence, [msn.com] or are you a hack engaging in situational ethics?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope, sincerely, that the charges are dropped. Not only did they go out of their way to prosecute someone who did the right thing (which was the right thing, because we were killing civilians, which the military was trying to cover up). But now they're ignoring due process and the rights that he is granted, the rights that the same military purports to protect, strong arming some little guy who just wanted to do the right thing and serve his country.
I would like to see him get a presidential pardon and
This situation is so utterly exposing of ... (Score:3)
... the psychopathic authoritarians
crime and punishment (Score:5, Insightful)
Punishment. In civilized places we don't punish people. We attempt to rehabilitate them, and to prevent them from continuing to commit acts against others. But we don't punish them. The fact that the conditions that Manning has been held in equate to punishment, when he hasn't even had a trial and been convicted, is a disgrace. There should be outrage from the international community (at least those places that claim the labels "liberal" and "democratic").
Personally I'm not even convinced he leaked all that stuff. What did he get out of it? But props to whomever did leak those cables. It was a great service to the world. Highlighting hypocrisy by the US government, and also some of the nastiness done by other nations with the tacit support, and knowledge, of the US government.
Also, the pleas have not "been accepted by the judge" according to the BBC [bbc.co.uk].
Why would he offer to plead guilty if he, as I suggest, didn't even do the crime? Because the conditions are so awful. It's long been the case that innocents have been tortured and then confessed. (I've been reading the Arabian Nights, and someone confessed to thieving because they were being beaten so much, and then they had their hand cut off. But they didn't actually do the crime.) Manning is being tortured.
Even just preventing him from seeing properly (taking his glasses away) is mistreatment.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would he offer to plead guilty if he, as I suggest, didn't even do the crime?
Several other reasons I can think of:
1. His attorneys advised him that even if he hadn't done the crime, there was enough evidence (and possibly prejudice among the military jury who would hear his case) that he would be likely convicted. So a plea bargain might be the best he could do.
2. He knows who actually did it, but has chosen to plead guilty to protect someone else.
3. He doesn't know who did it, but has chosen to plead guilty because he believes that it was the right action and doesn't want someone e
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree rehabilitation is a worthy goal, the PRIMARY goal of a justice system should be to prevent offenses. Towards that end punishment is used as a deterrent, detention is used to remove opportunity, and rehabilitation is used to remove motive.
Once somebody has commited a crime, *society* comes first, not the convicted criminal.
That's different from what has allegedly occured here, of course, where excessive punishment that many would call torture has preceded trial.
Re: (Score:2)
Keeping someone in jail should not be done for the purposes of punishment. Compare the conditions of, e.g., Scandinavian prisons to those of the US. In one, the focus is not on punishment, but on rehabilitation. As such, prisoners have access to TVs and other amenities in their cells. See this 2010 article from Time. [time.com]
And yes, I do think that imprisoning someone if the reason is not to prevent them from committing more acts against others is uncivilized. Which sort of rules out, I suspect, the entire world as
2 years in jail without a hearing??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hero (Score:2)
That is all . . .
What a submission (Score:2)
I think if you tried really, really, really hard you could make a more biased story submission. Can the crowd here come up with something even more biased (on either side) than this?
Too many missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Also related to that (Score:3)
Is the issue of having security clearance. When you get it, you agree (in the formal legal sense) not to release classified information under penalty of law. People with security clearance are held to a different standard than those without, when it comes to classified information.
So ya, a person in Manning's former position, a military member who has access to classified data, is held to a very different standard than civilians.
usa has issues in this case (Score:2)
too many people have too much access so the info is not a secret any more.
also Bradley was not in a condition to be granted such access. big oversight/misjudgement by the superiors.
finally the 'national security' horn is touted wayyy too often in the former USA (now UPSA or USSA) so that has no value.
Bradley has to be treated like whistle blower exposing evil governments.
He is a hero.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
who has done more to change the face of the world, for the better
Such as.........?
I guess that's the question; was he a spy? (Score:3)
My personal opinion of the person is that is he cracked in the head; homosexual or not. And while I do feel that he failed in his duty and honor I don't think he was in a fit state of mind. Those that put such a nut in such a position of responsibility should be held accountable for dereliction of duty. When I first herd his story I felt he was a dishonorable solider but a contentious american but now I realize believe he was a cracked nut to begin with and the military just added heat and made pop-corn.
But lets just assume he qualifies as being criminally rational at the time he did the things he did. When I think of spying or being a traitor I think of it being for the purpose of specifically benefiting another group or groups. One such group could of course be himself if he could expect some significant benefit such as money. But I don't see any of that here. He didn't pass along information in private that could benefit a foreign power. Some may even say that what he made public helped Islamist's in the middle east in their revolutions; those most opposed to his own political leanings.
I think some distinction much be made between a cracked contentious whistle blower that tarnishes his honor by not keeping his mouth shut and a true traitor that in his position could have done far more damage.
Reasoning Backwards (Score:5, Interesting)
The one thing that's been amusing about the whole Manning case is how consistent his Defender’s argument has been. From the very beginning, the idea that "Manning is Not Guilty" has accepted as axiomatic, regardless of whatever evidence was provided and all arguments had to end with that conclusion.
At first, “Everyone” knew that Manning was just a scapegoat for Wikileaks and anyone who claimed otherwise was obviously A Fascist Thug.
Then as evidence came out show he had released documents, well of course he was just a whistleblower and anyone who claimed otherwise was obviously working for the Man.
When it turns out he released tens of thousands of documents he hadn’t even read and thus can’t be whistleblowing, then The Defenders invent bizarre new legal doctrines about how since the documents went to WikiLeaks not a foreign government, it’s not illegal. Or Manning is a Journalist! And so no laws apply to him, after all the legal expert Assange said so. And anyone who claimed otherwise was obviously A Fascist Thug.
Now that Manning’s own lawyers are giving up on that argument, let’s go to claims of mistreatment to get him off.
When that fails I’m sure some of the older claims of insanity will come back. Or we’ll go to the claim that HE created the Arab Spring, not the millions of oppressed Arabs who’ve suffered for decades. Nah, they’re just a sideshow to Manning. Or another favorite, Governments shouldn’t be able to have anything secret at all. That’s why the Defenders all worked so hard to defend Scooter Libby. Free Scooter Libby! they cried. And of course there is the strange issue ofis this all proof that Obama is actually A Fascist Thug?
He will still be villified (Score:2)
Regardless of Mr. Mannings outcome, the "average american" would still view him as a spy/traitor/terrorist sympathizer.
This trial will end in two ways... either he is found not guilty of all charges and he let go; or he is found guilty of the minor charges, while the major charges are dropped and the judge finds his pre-trial confinement as punishment enough for the guilty charges and lets him go.
Manning is small fries. This trial is also taking the spotlight away from General Penetration (I mean Petraeus)
Bleating "but he broke the laaaaw" is BULLSHIT (Score:5, Insightful)
Where are the military tribunals for those who committed torture under the Bush Regime.
Where are the military tribunals of evangelical officers and generals for proselytizing to the troops.
Where are the Espionage Act prosecutions of Libby, Rove, Armitage et all over revealing Valerie Plame's status as an undercover CIA officer. Who worked on non-proliferation, something a weee bit more important than than cables where the "worst" result was embarrassment to the U.S.
Where are the criminal prosecutions for mass warrantless wiretapping.
Where are the criminal prosecutions for murder-by-drone.
Where are the criminal prosecutions for the bankers that looted the economy.
And finally, where are the Concerns for military procedure when it comes to Obama's unlawful command influence? [msn.com]
Using the civilian or military justice system to shield your friends and yourself while threatening your political enemies with life in prison or even death is simply disgusting, as are those who excuse it.
Re:Bleating "but he broke the laaaaw" is BULLSHIT (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides those, legality or illegality is no longer the sole standard against which military behavior is measured. The Nazis did nothing illegal but it was sure as hell immoral and the Nuremburg Trials established that legality alone is not how we judge military actors.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Case dismissed? (Score:5, Insightful)
He's lucky he is getting a case at all. Traitors should be subject to summary execution during wartime.
"Congress shall have power to ... declare War"
- http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html [usconstitution.net]
I don't recall seeing any Congressional declaration of war.
Re: (Score:3)
Why does this insanity continued to be repeated on Slashdot?
Resolutions were passed authorizing the use of force. Congress has authorized vast sums of money to wage war. Politicians in both parties have acknowledged that we are at war. Personally, I'm not particularly happy that we went to war, but it's pretty clear that we did so.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people don't comprehend the difference at all.
WAR, the last actual WAR the USA was involved in was things like the "Korean Wars" or Vetnam. However, as noted by others, these "wars" we keep claiming to have, are in fact called... Operations.
We redifined what War is, by calling it Operations we have change the way battles are handled, We no longer send in waves after waves of soldiers to fight on a battlefield with death as a certainty. Today, we send in specialized units, platoon
Re:Case dismissed? (Score:4, Insightful)
And so begins the Great War of Semantics (undeclared)!
*gets popcorn*
Re: (Score:2)
Any chance you could cite an authoritative source as to what all is involved in or required by a 'declaration of war'?
I'll give you a hint... whatever you find will actually be in line with the authorizations to use military force in Afghanistan & Iraq.
Unlike the Obama Administration's actions in Libya... the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are quite legal under US law. Can't say the same about the unauthorized military action which was the first in the history of the War Powers Act to violate it.
Your constitution? (Score:2, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
Congress has to declare it, not just stamp "PAID" on military budgets. Budgets are confirmed by Congress all the time, these are not declarations of war.
Congress has allowed the military to be paid.
Not declared war.
Re: (Score:2)
I always enjoy it when someone fails to read the article they link to... allow me to cite a very key part you obviously missed (emphasis mine):
Let me repeat that: no specific format.
In fact... your very own
A formal declaration of war is required (Score:3, Informative)
Otherwise you are not in wartime, therefore the claim of the arsehole OP "Traitors should be subject to summary execution during wartime." doesn't apply.
Might as well have said "People called Bradley should be shot if we are invaded by aliens who hate that name".
Re: (Score:3)
Just out of curiosity, what do you personally get out of being a troll? How does lying about history, or pretending that places like Korea don't exist ... what does that actually achieve for you? I'm guessing it's all an indirect way to attempt to paint Manning as some sort of Really Nice Guy who doesn't deserve to be given a hard time for his staggering breach of trust. But because that position is also completely irrational and held only by cluele
Re:Yup, they've not been in a state of war since 4 (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is a declaration of war and a state of war IS an anachronism to the point that summary execution during wartime isn't done because there is no war time anymore, there are extended military actions under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, usually, but not always, accompanied by a UN Security Council Resolution. So just like declaration of war is an anachronism, so is summary execution during wartime is an anachronism.
Trying to use a semantics argument against a legal framework argument by saying that semantics don't matter, except in the case where the semantics say you get to feel justified by ending another human beings life (a fellow American citizen, no less) is also completely irrational and held only by clueless, non-worldly people who can't muster the energy and attention span to actually understand consequences.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Pretty sure you need a declaration of war to have wartime, kid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wartime requires a declaration of war. The past decade has been a long string of (bumbling and incompetent) military actions. You know, because Congress authorized military actions, not war. Do words mean something else on your planet?
Re:Case dismissed? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Case dismissed? (Score:5, Funny)
Helping. we are Helping the middle east.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Even in wartime, summary execution is not legal in the UCMJ except under extreme circumstances. All capital cases would be tried by court martial, including treason. In no way would Manning have been in that situation.
As far was what "wartime" consists of, that in and of itself doesn't make any difference on whether summary execution could be employed, however. If someone in Afghanistan did something that would have betrayed his unit to imminent and extreme danger, and he could not be restrained in any w
Re:Case dismissed? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes. No one is likely to try Manning for treason. They will likely try him under the Espionage Act and give him jail time. At most ten years, I'd say. It's probably a little harsh, but we can't have PFCs deciding that they are going to start spewing classified materials scattershot on a whim. The military is making an example out of him, and frankly, I'm not sure I blame them. It's a very serious issue if you can't trust your own people.
As for it being "torture", well until someone tells me that they are sleep depriving and water boarding him, I'd say that's hyperbole. I understand that solitary is not fun in the slightest, but there are good reasons to put someone who is being tried because they can't keep their proverbial trap shut in solitary.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me quote this from theregister.co.uk [theregister.co.uk]:
I see your point. Let me ask you this:
was he a traitor to:
1) the United States of America,
2) its Government
3) the human race
I pick #2, and at the same time make him a hero for #1 and #3.
Re: (Score:3)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't think any one is pretending that he didn't actually release the material. He's definitely guilty of something, it's only a matter of determining what he is guilty of.
Of course, if he wants to argue that it wasn't him and it's a frame job, then I'm all ears, but no one is suggesting that he isn't responsible. All people are saying is that they think it was the "right thing to do". That doesn't mean it wasn't illegal.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason that the US government has treated Manning the way it did was to break him and to try and get him to sign some fake confession that would help them to accuse Wikileaks and Assange in some form or 'espionage' or even 'treason' (which is pure nonsense, can't charge a foreigner with treason).
I agree with the latter part. As for the former, I think a good part of the reason is that they assumed he's guilty and are basically a bunch of shitheads. They don't seem to realise that there is a really
Re:Cruel and unusual (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this is more about setting an example to discourage anyone else from airing the US Government's dirty laundry. No way to tell just how much evil being done behind the scenes might get out if another Bradley Manning steps up to the plate. As such, I expect he will get life without parole.
I also expect it will come out in years to come that this verdict was determined before the trial began.
Re: (Score:2)
Aaaah and now er have slashdot's favourite capitalista [hutman.net]. If the government taxes the rich so hard then how come Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher rate of tax than Warren Buffet [go.com]?
Are you people still beating that drum? It is probably the difference between tax on ordinary income and tax on capital gains. I am not rich, but I like a low capital gains tax. First, because that money has - depending on the investment vehicle - already been taxed at the ordinary income rate. And, second, because whether I have $100K or $100M in the bank I pay the same 15%.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you people still beating that drum?
Which people?
First, because that money has - depending on the investment vehicle - already been taxed at the ordinary income rate.
Well, OK, so why isn't normal interest taxable at the capital gains tax rate. And as you point out it depends on the investment vehicle.
And secondly, you seem to be misunderstnding something. If you buy stocks with taxed money, then sell them at the same price, you pay no extra tax.
You only pay tax on the difference. In other words, the mon
Re: (Score:2)
Inventory tax is a tax based on wealth.
Re: (Score:2)
the second half of your post appears to have no relationship with the first half.
is it just a rant you attach to every post?
minor side note, I don't have data for the last couple of years but:
top 1% 1979, average effective federal tax rate: 35.1%
top 1% 2009, average effective federal tax rate:
28.9%
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456 [taxpolicycenter.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but your problem is that you're thinking that money belongs to the "people" or some such. It doesn't. It belongs to an individual. And you have no right to take it from them. A flat tax rate DOES tax the rich more... that's why it's a percentage. 30% of my salary is a hell of a lot less than 30% of bill gates. What we need to do is dump ALL taxes other than sales tax. We should have a purely consumption based tax system. The rich buy more, and will pay more. People will have incentive to save. It's goo
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason that the US government has treated Manning the way it did was to break him and to try and get him to sign some fake confession that would help them to accuse Wikileaks and Assange in some form or 'espionage' or even 'treason' (which is pure nonsense, can't charge a foreigner with treason).
Why would the US government bother getting a confession for a crime to convict someone else of a crime that doesn't exist?
Yes, treason technically cannot be applied to a foreign national, but that is because the definition of the crime requires someone to actually break their allegiance, which of course, a foreigner never had in the first place.
That doesn't mean US Laws in general cannot be applied to a foreigner. They can try Assange under the Espionage Act if they like. The only requirement to be under
Re: (Score:2)
How does one blow the whistle on the government as john q public when they don't have the access to classified data that deserves to be shown to the the people so that the government/military can be held responsible. Only someone with access can leak it and be a whistle blower.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not perfectly clear, that's fucking idiotic.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I didn't write enough there. What I'm trying to say is that there was a legitimate requirement for the government to be concerned for his welfare and protect him from himself. Now people reading this might not understand what suicide watch normally is and read the description and think that its a cruel and unusual punishment reserved for Manning, but its not. One should also keep in mind that he's still in the Armed forces. Daily life in the Armed forces isn't a pleasure cruise and soldiers are subjec
Re:Who cares (Score:4, Insightful)
Did he know he would be held for two years without trial? Nearly one whole year in solitary? Is this really how you think we should be treating people who are innocent until proven guilty? Or do you want to dispense with that entirely?
People like you are far more dangerous than Manning.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
people who are innocent until proven guilty
Right! All people are the same, all circumstances are the same. All levels of trust and betrayal and consequence and risk are the same everyplace, all the time. Nobody should be held or in any way ever inconvenienced no matter what they've been caught red-handed doing, or what is placed at risk for doing so. Military personnel trusted with secure information who spitefully spew hundreds of thousands of documents into the hands of people who would otherwise have to conduct major espionage campaigns to get t
Re: (Score:2)
Rule of law is rule of law. People like you that dismiss it are more dangerous than manning by far.
Re:Who cares (Score:5, Informative)
Under the Military Code of Justice you are NOT innocent until proven guilty.
UCMJ Article 51(c) [about.com] reads in part:
Re:Subject to military conduct rules - toughen up (Score:4, Insightful)
How many military personnel do you know that didn't get the benefits they were promised?
How many had the hard reality of being pawns for psychopathic authoritarians?
How many swore to defend the USA from enemies foreign and domestic?
Why have more taken their own lives, suicide, than has been killed in Iraq?
Military code? what is that in comparison to the above?
Really not much on the scale of honesty.
Re: (Score:2)
I love the internet.
Re:Save the taxpayers money... (Score:5, Insightful)
That explains why he was doling out things like the identities of people supporting the freedom movement in Iran, so that their families can be hounded by the regime there. That explains why he went out of his way to expose carefully created covert operations aimed at defaning groups like Al Queda as they and their buddies try to Taliban-ize exciting new destinations in Africa. We sure don't want to have fragile local governments there having any quiet support while they deal with groups that like to shoot school teachers in the head for teaching girls to read! Manning has bravely helped to make sure that support given to local governments in places like that is done in a way that will allow jihaddist nut jobs to better hunt down and kill those who would organize against them in such places. What a hero! What a freedom loving individual! Yay for him!
Re: (Score:2)
The people to blame for all of that are the ones who have abused their ability to classify information, and who do so for no reason other than that they can. Were there some things that should have remained secret? Yes. But there were many more things that should never have been made secret.
You want to punish Manning? Sure, OK, after a fair trial. But also punish those who hid their crimes, those who failed to make complaints about those crimes, and those who failed to take any complaints that were ma