Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Manning trial to start

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Manning trial to start

    I don't see how this is a trial. He said he did it, there is only one punishment for aiding the enemy during time of war. Shoot him in the face and bury him in a shallow unmarked grave.



    The court-martial of Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, the onetime Maryland resident at the center of the largest security breach in U.S. history, begins today at Fort Meade.
    Manning, who served as an intelligence analyst in Iraq, has admitted to leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents — including diplomatic cables, Iraq and Afghanistan war logs and gunsight video footage of a 2007 U.S. helicopter attack that killed civilians in Baghdad — to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks.

    The 25-year-old soldier faces charges including violating the Espionage Act and aiding the enemy. If convicted, he could be sentenced to life in prison.
    Lawyers for the government and Manning are expected to make opening arguments Monday morning, and the government is scheduled to begin presenting witnesses in the afternoon.

    Three witnesses are scheduled for Monday: Two special agents with the Army Criminal Investigative Division and Manning's roommate at Forward Operating Base Hammer in Iraq.

    The roommate testified during a preliminary hearing in December 2011 that Manning "probably planned on getting out of the military."
    Spec. Eric S. Baker said Manning had told him the Army "wasn't for him." He also said Manning used a computer "quite often."
    "When I'd wake up in the middle of the night, he'd be on the computer," Baker said.

    In cross-examination, Baker acknowledged to Manning's attorney that the two weren't friends. Baker affirmed that Manning had made statements that led him to believe he was gay, and Baker responded that it would be best if they didn't talk.
    Outside the main gate to Fort Meade on Route 175 in Odenton Monday morning, a few dozen Manning supporters held signs reading "Free Brad" and other messages.

    On the base, in the parking lot to the media center, stood a white box truck emblazoned "WikiLeaks Mobile Information Collection Unit" and "Release Bradley Manning."

    Officials from the Military District of Washington, which is convening the court-martial, say they received more than 350 requests from news organizations for credentials to cover the proceedings. The district has made 10 seats in the courtroom and 70 seats in the media center available to reporters from around the world.
    For planning purposes, officials have told reporters the trial could last 12 weeks.
    The opening Monday follows more than 18 months of pretrial hearings. In February, Manning told the military judge presiding over his case that he wanted to provoke a public debate over U.S. foreign and military policy.

    When WikiLeaks and several news organizations began publishing the materials in 2010, government officials said the candid political assessments and battlefield information they contained would compromise U.S. diplomacy and put American and other lives at risk.

    Manning's attorneys say the release endangered no one. Damage assessments the government performed after the leak remain classified, and prosecutors have argued to keep them out of the court-martial.

    Manning lived with an aunt in Potomac and studied at Montgomery College before he enlisted in the Army in 2007.
    He was arrested in Baghdad in May 2010 after a hacker to whom he had described the leak went to the FBI. He was brought back to the United States, where he has been held since the arrest.

    He pleaded guilty in February to several lesser charges related to leaking the material, for which he now faces up to 20 years in prison. He reaffirmed those pleas Monday to Army Col. Denise Lind, the judge presiding over his court-martial.

    Manning has become a hero to some anti-war activists, who say footage of the 2007 Apache helicopter attack appears to show evidence of a war crime.
    The attack in Baghdad left 12 dead, including a Reuters journalist and his driver. In the video, released by WikiLeaks under the title "Collateral Murder," the American helicopter crew can be heard laughing and referring to Iraqis as "dead bastards."

    Supporters say Manning deserves some credit for fueling the Arab Spring, the wave of popular revolts that toppled authoritarian regimes in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, has roiled Syria and unsettled governments elsewhere.

    On Saturday, hundreds of demonstrators marched on Fort Meade, chanting "Free Bradley Manning" and wielding signs that read "my hero" and "Americans have the right to know" to show their support.

    In hearings, Manning's lawyers have sought to portray the diminutive soldier as a troubled young man who struggled with gender identity disorder, was isolated from his fellow service members and should not have been given access to the classified materials.

    The materials released by WikiLeaks included field reports from Afghanistan with details of previously unreported civilian deaths and evidence of Pakistani and Iranian support of the Taliban and field reports from Iraq with details of previously unreported civilian deaths and reports of abuse, torture, rape and murder by Iraqi security forces.

    Also released were diplomatic cables sent from embassies, consulates and other U.S. missions to the State Department between 1966 and 2010 containing analyses and assessments of foreign leaders and governments and economic and political conditions.
    Manning's supporters say he should be protected as a whistleblower.
    matthew.brown@baltsun.com
    twitter.com/matthewhaybrown


    Read more: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/mar...#ixzz2VAWU0uiV
    I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

  • #2
    Do we not have the right to know about war crimes? Obviously information that would compromise the lives of soldiers should not be released and that action should be punished, but I feel that the attack on civilians mentioned in the article should be made public. Major fuck ups in the private sector are always making the news and blown out of proportion so it is not fair that the government including the military should be shielded from such things.
    Originally posted by lincolnboy
    After watching Games of Thrones, makes me glad i was not born in those years.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by DOHCTR View Post
      Do we not have the right to know about war crimes? Obviously information that would compromise the lives of soldiers should not be released and that action should be punished, but I feel that the attack on civilians mentioned in the article should be made public. Major fuck ups in the private sector are always making the news and blown out of proportion so it is not fair that the government including the military should be shielded from such things.
      There were no war crimes shown, nor did he take his concerns up his chain of command. He went to a foreign agency with not just videos but also diplomatic cables during time of war. Treason.
      I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
        There were no war crimes shown, nor did he take his concerns up his chain of command. He went to a foreign agency with not just videos but also diplomatic cables during time of war. Treason.
        Agreed. No excuses.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
          There were no war crimes shown, nor did he take his concerns up his chain of command. He went to a foreign agency with not just videos but also diplomatic cables during time of war. Treason.
          So an Apache helicopter killing 12 civilians and then the pilot and gunner laughing about it is not a war crime?

          In my opinion covering something like that up should be punishable.
          Originally posted by lincolnboy
          After watching Games of Thrones, makes me glad i was not born in those years.

          Comment


          • #6

            Comment


            • #7
              Yeah Im on the fence about this too. On one hand he gave out some info that put alot of people at risk. On the other hand he let out some info that shed some light on alot of stuff that our government has been trying to hide from the world.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by DOHCTR View Post
                So an Apache helicopter killing 12 civilians and then the pilot and gunner laughing about it is not a war crime?

                In my opinion covering something like that up should be punishable.
                Don't point things at an Apache in an area where they are known to use RPG's.
                I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by DOHCTR View Post
                  So an Apache helicopter killing 12 civilians and then the pilot and gunner laughing about it is not a war crime?

                  In my opinion covering something like that up should be punishable.

                  I don't see what laughing has to do with anything.
                  Originally posted by BradM
                  But, just like condoms and women's rights, I don't believe in them.
                  Originally posted by Leah
                  In other news: Brent's meat melts in your mouth.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
                    Don't point things at an Apache in an area where they are known to use RPG's.
                    Ah, so that was okay then.
                    Originally posted by lincolnboy
                    After watching Games of Thrones, makes me glad i was not born in those years.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by DOHCTR View Post
                      Ah, so that was okay then.
                      Okay? No.

                      Illegal? Also, no.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by exlude View Post
                        Okay? No.

                        Illegal? Also, no.
                        "A war crime is a serious violation of the laws applicable in armed conflict (also known as international humanitarian law) giving rise to individual criminal responsibility. Examples of war crimes include "murder, the ill-treatment, or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps," "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war," the killing of prisoners, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity."[1]


                        1. Gary D. Solis (2010) The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, Cambridge University Press ISBN 978-0-521-87088-7 pp. 301–303
                        Originally posted by lincolnboy
                        After watching Games of Thrones, makes me glad i was not born in those years.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          What a bland, uninformitive quote.

                          The fact of the matter is, you are allowed to shoot if you believe there is hostile intent toward yourself or friendly forces. Now, it can happen that the belief is incorrect, especially with an non-uniformed enemy. But depending on the shooter's posture and intent at the time, decides whether or not it's a war crime.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            In combat, if someone points something at you and you believe yourself in danger, you are free to engage them. The reporter aimed something at an Apache and paid for that idiocy. However if he had just released that to a US news agency as a whistleblower, then you may have a point. Instead, he released hundreds of thousands of secret documents to a foreign agency with the intent of harming the US. The very fact that he engaged in the action that he did (releasing documents he had no clearance to release) to a foreign agent (Wikileaks is foreign) during time of war, it's treason
                            Last edited by Forever_frost; 06-03-2013, 11:50 AM.
                            I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the wiki leaks version of the video dubbed over or something and was only a small portion of what happened. I remember there being a lot of news coverage about 2-3 years ago about the full video being released and it started with the apache pilot saying they were taking fire from that group. Those journalists were traveling with insurgents. In a war zone. Umm, yeah, I'd say your chances of getting a hellfire down your throat is pretty high. That's not a war crime. That's being a dumbass and dying for it.

                              If, and I say if because I could be talking about another video, that is the case then the reporter fails because their article is inaccurate. I've seen this several times lately. In this case if the video was manipulated to look like a war crime when it wasn't, then Manning isn't remotely close to the "hero" they claim him to be. And yes, I believe what he did was treason, and should punished accordingly. You want to investigate war crime allegations or the possibilities of, contact the appropriate people. You DO NOT release sensitive information. Period.

                              -Eric

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X