Bradley Manning Offers Partial Guilty Plea To Military Court 380
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.""
So does this include (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So does this include (Score:5, Funny)
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.
I didn't expect some kind of Spanish inquisition.
Re:So does this include (Score:5, Funny)
must not post ...
must not post
awe heck
"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition"
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Now I have to.
"Our chief weapon is surprise"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear surprise, and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency....
Sorry, couldn't resist, besides I had to undo a moderation
Re:So does this include (Score:4, Insightful)
http://xkcd.com/16/ [xkcd.com]
(Although, to be honest, using that as humour to stop you posting 30-year-old Python quotes is almost beginning to suffer the same problem).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
NOBODY EXPECTS... xkcd!
Re:So does this include (Score:4, Funny)
The Inquisition.... What a show... wait, shit wrong movie.
Fascist bloodlust (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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)
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.
Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
sez the good German...
Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:5, Interesting)
Says the rational American who realizes that the military may do a lot of really disgusting shit, so does every military. If we can't keep secrets, we will simply fail to be effective on the world stage.
Why would you want to be effective in doing really disgusting shit on the world stage, though? Whistleblowing leeway exists exactly to prevent revolting things from happening covertly. Since most military organizations can be so prone to enacting terrible deeds, even more freedom should be given for whistleblowing. I understand they might need secrecy for some of their shit, but if their own agents are morally averted by what's going on, then it's a good idea to bring the debate to the public.
Re: (Score:3)
What the hell? You are consigned to the fact that the military does some fucked up shit and you would think we're better off if we just don't hear about it. Proud to be an American.
Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:5, Insightful)
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: ... List Continues...
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.
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: ... List Continues ...
-- Date X, letter to Officer Y, outlining same details.
-- Date X, letter to Officer Y, outlining same details.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
If you refuse an order you are almost guaranteed a court-martial, but at the same time a court can acquit you with honor, and a court is certainly the place to air things like this, on the record. An officer in the wrong will not want you in front of a court-martial if you have any chance or proving your case.
Manning is currently in that situation, sort of. Although I'd say that becoming someone who is roving through files that he had no business being in might have overstepped his personal responsibility
Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:4, Insightful)
We know how well that works for police. They never get away with crimes, ever.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:4)
Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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
Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.)
Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
"I was just following orders" Is not a valid defense for evil acts. Neither should be "it was top secret".
captcha:embassy (ooo, creepy)
Re:Fascist bloodlust (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Name one.
The inquiry set up specifically to discover if that assertion was true couldn't, and they had access to a lot more information than you.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
What's a few boy sex slaves amongst friends?
Re: (Score:3)
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 was just following orders"? No, US military are trained in their responsibility to refuse unlawful orders.
Manning failed to demonstrate integrity by releasing the data without first reporting that he believed the classification orders to be unlawful, but if they were in fact unlawful then he was supposed to ignore them.
Has it ever been explicitly established whether or not Manning (or other members of his company/platoon) attempted to seek advice from higher ups? Having served in the military myself, I can tell you that when you get a rotten chain of command, the damn thing is rotten from bottom to top. It may be that other members attempted to report what they'd seen and had been "stifled", either by military means (all of the shitty jobs, no sleep, limited rations, whatever - makes someone not have so much energy for
Re: (Score:3)
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:Fascist bloodlust (Score:5, Informative)
THe collateral murder video and its coverup.
There was also the little part of a us contractor paying for boy sex slaves as bribe to a afghanistan warlord.
The majority of it wasn't particularly offensive, but there were a few malignant little gems in there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
So he's guilty of copyright infringement? I thought that wasn't a crime on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
And what about the Afghan informants who got murdered by the Taliban as soon as they got their hands on the lists of names from Wikileaks? And who knows how many coalition soldiers have gotten killed as a result of the insight those leaks gave the Taliban and others into our operations?
Did that even happen? Got any links? I doubt it, but I'm always willing to analyze evidence.
Don't let them win (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
What crime would Assange stand trial for?
Re: (Score:2)
Having a bad haircut.
Martyrdom (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Never
Re: (Score:2)
When shit roles uphill and hell freezes over.
Re:When do the General's get charged? (Score:5, Insightful)
> You know, the ones who approved of the illegal activities by the military personal who Manning *PROPERLY* released information about?
Releasing classified documents to an uncleared foreign national is NOT "properly released", it's illegal and punishable by imprisonment and in some cases death. The illegality of his actions and the resulting punishment were VERY well known to him, as it is to every single soldier that holds his clearance level. There were proper ways for him to handle himself, which he was retrained on every single year, but he made very specific decisions to break serious laws. He knew what he was getting into.
Should have used FOIA (Score:3)
If I found
Re: (Score:2)
And you would get a nice sheet of paper 90% black after the redactions. No one would care and no one would ever know.
Then visibility isn't the problem (Score:2)
If that's the case, it implies a secret being kept.
If no one cares about that, then no one cares that a secret is being kept.
This is the situation we have now: most of us are fully aware that our government keeps secrets, and has to do some bad stuff to keep up with the bad guys. (Think of some of the nasty stuff we did during the Cold War, for example.)
It seems that only a few of you want go
Re: (Score:2)
Some bad stuff to keep up with the bad guys?
Then we are the bad guys, at the best no better.
The reason for publishing secrets is simple, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe that FIOA applies to classified MILITARY secrets, you are very much mistaken. If you believe that you would be allowed to speak openly about classified matters that you gained knowledge of while in the military, you are also mistaken.
If you believe that you first owe loyalty to "humanity" and then to your country and it's military it is doubtful that you would ever gain a security clearance in the first place. It takes a pretty specific mindset to rise above the level of grunt in the milita
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Military personnel are trained not to follow illegal orders. Those personnel who followed them are the criminals.
You can't hide *EVIDENCE* by stamping it as CLASSIFIED. Doesn't work that way.
Evidence is evidence, and you cannot by charged of any wrongdoing when being a whistleblower - federal law covers that.
This is a kangaroo court proceeding, where the kangaroos in question are guilty of the crimes evidenced.
Re:When do the General's get charged? (Score:5, Insightful)
*PROPERLY* released information about?
Properly? Wow. He released EVERYTHING, not just data that pertained to alleged abuses. It's roughly analogous to an IRS employee leaking everyone's tax returns because he suspects his boss is cheating on his taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, its really inconvenient when someone reveals the crimes that your business performs to the public. People might not buy your products if they knew you bribed Afghanistan warlords with little boys to be used as sex slaves.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of them are dead. We haven't been at war in 65 years.
Re:Good: he's guilty and so is Assange (Score:5, Interesting)
They weren't secrets, it was evidence. Evidence of the crimes committed by military personnel. Anyone else who knew of the evidence, that didn't speak up, that didn't bring it forward, was aiding and abetting criminals. Period.
So you and your "unpopular view" can go fuck yourself. He did the right and legal thing.
Everyone else who knew about should be charged (And convicted and sentenced) with the crimes listed in the evidence, period!
Evidence is used to prove a case (Score:2)
Exactly.
They didn't go looking for evidence.
They released a ton of information, and then looked back through it to find a justification for releasing it.
Re: (Score:2)
That might be a valid complaint.
First one you have made so far.
Re: (Score:3)
Manning is not the police. The government is not a person. Evidence is not merely "reason to suspect". This is a case of the system of military justice failing due to institutional corruption, and Bradley Manning took extreme but justified measures to expose it.
Re: (Score:3)
The government doesn't have a constitutional right to a fair trial. It has unlimitedaccountability to all its citizens, from Bradley Manning to you and I.
Unfortunately, "accountability" doesn't mean much in an information vacuum. Fortunatel
Re:Good: he's guilty and so is Assange (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't know what government does and a lot of it we'd rather not know.
Speak for yourself.
Oh, so you want to be complicit? (Score:2)
Do you work within government? That's generally the accepted way.
If you know, you're complicit in approving this stuff, most of which goes on in morally murky areas.
Espionage, counter-terrorism, military strategy and other areas contain a lot of stuff that must necessarily be secret.
Do you want to be responsible for knowing where all the nukes are? Didn't think so.
Guess I didn't "speak for myself (only)" after all.
Re: (Score:2)
None of that stuff needs to be secret forever.
At some point all of it should be public.
I know where the nukes are, the silos are plenty visible. I should be able to find out where our subs were 25 years ago.
Knowledge of it does not make me anymore complicit than I am already forced to be.
"At some point" (Score:2)
Now you're just waffling.
What evidence exists to suggest this stuff would have been buried 25 years from its creation?
None.
Re: (Score:2)
What evidence suggests it would not have been.
I am not waffling. I have never supported this exact situation. I merely object to the way it has been handled and the idea that it would never be appropriate for this sort of thing to occur.
Further more change opinions is what debate is for. Refuses to change your opinion based on evidence is not something to be admired.
Re:Good: he's guilty and so is Assange (Score:5, Informative)
What is Julian Assange guilty of?
What crime is it to publish documents your receive?
He is not a US citizen so he cannot have any responsibility to the US government.
I sure as hell would rather know what our government is doing. You might not, but I sure as hell would.
Re:Good: he's guilty and so is Assange (Score:4, Funny)
This was covered before, and you were proven wrong then too.
Espionage is an internationally recognized crime.
His citizenship is irrelevant.
Which is why during the cold war the USA and USSR regularly approved extradition of their respective spies.
Re:Good: he's guilty and so is Assange (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Just get good people into office, make sure there are others in the system who can observe what they do, and we'll get the best results.
systems self-police really well. we all know that from common everyday experience.
Actually, you're arguing my point (Score:2)
I'm assuming sarcasm.
I don't think systems self-police well.
I think having good people in those systems means that those people make correct moral choices.
Re: (Score:2)
However, for a society to work, we need to have rules. Just like it's bad logic to say, "I'm bigger than you, therefore I'm going to take your stuff," it's bad logic to say, "I know how to steal and publish these secrets, so I will."
Seems like that's exactly what's going on here. "We're the government, we run things, we determine what the public needs to know and what it doesn't." Society may work with rules dictating what it can know and what it can't, but most of us hold transparency and knowledge about what our government is doing much higher than the government does itself. I'd rather risk the public knowing too much than too many secrets being held. When are we going to punish the military brass for keeping too many things sec
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, Manning violated military law/protocol (I don't know what the proper term is) and yes that makes him guilty. However he has not been tried and found guilty by due process. No matter how guilty he seems, he has only been accused at this point and yet he has been locked in solitary confinement and forced to take drugs for years while he awaits his trial. So who is violating the rules here? Is the military above accountability? Should only the lone solider or citizen have to follow the rules while the mi
Re:Good: he's guilty and so is Assange (Score:5, Informative)
Did Julian Assange then publish these secrets, knowing that he has zero way of predicting the consequences? Yes: he's guilty.
There are 2 big reasons why what Assange did is not a crime:
1. Given that Julian Assange is not and has never been a US citizen or resident of the US, why is US law applicable to any action he takes? For example, if a Iranian spy working in Afghanistan uncovers classified information about the US military, the US can't demand that spy's extradition and expect to get anything out of that.
2. Pentagon Papers case [wikipedia.org]. The US Supreme Court has stated quite clearly that First Amendment protections apply to those who publish classified information, provided they weren't the ones leaking the information. And as you've stated, Manning was the one who provided the information to Assange, just like Ellsberg provided the information to the New York Times.
So (a) US law doesn't have jurisdiction, and (b) even if it did, it's still not illegal.
There's a reason countries collaborate (Score:3)
If you published that article about the king of Burma - perfectly legal to do here in the US. Should we then send you over there to die for blasphemy because what you did was illegal in a country 4000 miles away.
We wouldn't do that because their system of law doesn't comport to our basic notions of due process. There may also be other extradition issues, since in general the US is unwilling to extradite people to places where they'll get a show trial and immediate execution.
Our laws end at our borders.
Not r
Re: (Score:3)
Several people in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran have been taken into custody/and or killed due information provided in the release of these documents. This is not a harmless crime.
And yet the government hasn't charged that [bradleymanning.org], AC. Are you a paid misinformation agent?
Meanwhile, he may very well have saved tens of thousands of lives and helped spread democracy to the Middle East.