Manning trial to start

[Moose242]

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

Like a camera?


Then like I originally said, he should be punished. However for covering up stuff like the Apache killing civilians and journalists, additional people should be punished. I believe in American glasnost, sorry if you disagree but all governmental misdeeds should be made public, including those comitted by the military.

[Forever_frost]

If someone puts something on their shoulder and aims it at you, you light them up. Ever see what an RPG can do to a chopper or person? If you remember, that reporter was with insurgents and after the Apache attack, a van pulled up and removed all the weapons from the area so the coverage would look like it was a bad kill.

Yes government misdeeds should be made public. Explain the massive release of documents and battle plans if he's a whistleblower.

[Forever_frost]

Manning was arrested in Iraq more than three years ago. Since then, he admitted to sending the material WikiLeaks and pleaded guilty to reduced charges on nine counts that alleged violations of federal espionage and computer fraud laws, and to one count alleging violation of a military regulation prohibiting wrongful storage of classified information. The maximum for those offenses is 20 years in prison.
But Manning admitted guilt without a deal from the U.S. military and the Obama administration, who wanted to pursue the more serious charge of aiding the enemy.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/03...#ixzz2VBTxwj1x


U.S. officials have said the more than 700,000 Iraq and Afghanistan battlefield reports and State Department cables sent to WikiLeaks endangered lives and national security.
Within two weeks of his arrival in Iraq in late 2009, Manning began downloading information, seeking out WikiLeaks and communicating with the website's founder, Julian Assange, despite warnings from the military, the prosecutor said.
"The evidence will show that Pfc. Manning knew the dangers of unauthorized disclosures to an organization like WikiLeaks and he ignored those dangers," Morrow said.
The material WikiLeaks began publishing in 2010 documented complaints of Iraqi detainee abuses; a U.S. tally of civilian deaths in Iraq; and America's weak support for the government of Tunisia -- a disclosure Manning supporters said encouraged the popular uprising that ousted the Tunisian president in 2011 and helped trigger the Middle Eastern pro-democracy uprisings known as the Arab Spring.
The release of the cables and video embarrassed the U.S. and its allies. The Obama administration has said it threatened valuable military and diplomatic sources and strained America's relations with other governments, but the specific amount of damage hasn't been publicly revealed and probably won't be during the trial.
Lind ruled the extent of any damage is irrelevant.
Coombs contended Manning chose information he knew would not identify diplomatic or intelligence sources by name.
Much of the evidence is classified, which means large portions of the trial are likely to be closed to reporters and the public.
Lead prosecutor Maj. Ashden Fein told Lind in February that more than half of the government's 141 anticipated witnesses would testify about classified information, which would close up to 30 percent of the trial.
The court-martial's high degree of secrecy, including refusals to promptly release even routine filings and rulings, has fueled protests by Manning supporters. The Bradley Manning Support Network says it has raised more than $1.1 million for his defense and public outreach.
Supporters include documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, musician Graham Nash, actor John Cusack and Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg.
Ellsberg, a former military analyst, has said Manning's disclosures may be more significant than his own leak of a top-secret history of the Vietnam War expansion in 1971.
About 20 Manning supporters demonstrated in the rain outside the visitor gate at Fort Meade. They waved signs reading "free Bradley Manning" and "protect the truth" while chanting "What do want? Free Bradley. When do we want it? Now."
Lind previously ruled Manning had been illegally punished by being held in a military brig alone in a windowless cell 23 hours a day, sometimes with no clothing. She said he should get 112 days off any prison sentence he receives.
Manning has said he corresponded online with someone he believed to be Assange but never confirmed the person's identity. Assange is the subject of a separate federal investigation into whether he can be prosecuted for publishing the information Manning leaked.
WikiLeaks has been careful never to confirm or deny Manning was the source of the documents.
Assange has been holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London to avoid extradition to Sweden on sex-crimes allegations.

[exlude]

Like a camera?

Traveling with individuals armed with RPGs and AKMs/AK-47. In an area where troops are in contact. Believe it or not, it's not very easy to tell what someone is pointing at you from such a distance...especially when you know they are already collectively traveling with weapons.

Hind sight is 20-20. Unfortunately, the same call has been made the other way, the trigger wasn't pulled, and Americans died because of it.

[Moose242]

If someone puts something on their shoulder and aims it at you, you light them up. Ever see what an RPG can do to a chopper or person? If you remember, that reporter was with insurgents and after the Apache attack, a van pulled up and removed all the weapons from the area so the coverage would look like it was a bad kill.

Yes government misdeeds should be made public. Explain the massive release of documents and battle plans if he's a whistleblower.

You know what the funniest part about this whole thing is? If a cop hurts or kills an innocent because he believed he/she was in danger and it turns out that there was no life threatening element, you jump on it like crazy and condemn the officer for doing so. But if the military kills 12 innocents, it is totally ok. What is the deal dude? Is it so beat into your head that the military is full of nothing but white knights crusading for all that is good and righteous no matter what happens?

Hell, I remember posting an article a while back about all of those soldiers who urinated on the dead insurgents and you actually chastised me for calling that action into question.

In your mind everything about the government is a giant clusterfuck with no good to be found anywhere unless it somehow pertains to the armed forces.

[reo]

If someone puts something on their shoulder and aims it at you, you light them up. Ever see what an RPG can do to a chopper or person? If you remember, that reporter was with insurgents and after the Apache attack, a van pulled up and removed all the weapons from the area so the coverage would look like it was a bad kill.

Yes government misdeeds should be made public. Explain the massive release of documents and battle plans if he's a whistleblower.

Ok, so that is the same video I'm thinking of. The reporter in the original article is making it sound like there was a war crime commited when in reality it wasn't. That is what pisses me off about journalist these days, they are too lazy to keep up with current events to realize when important pieces of their articles is dated or inaccurate. Kinda makes the whole arguement for Manning irrelevent does it not? And I agree, if he was a whistleblower, the leak should have only been in regards to what he was trying to bring attention to. My opinion is he wanted to expose as much classified information as possible due to his personal issues with being in the military, or he felt that wikileaks was a great idea and that he needed to hand over everything he knew. Either way, it was wrong, and he needs to face the consequences for it.

-Eric

[Forever_frost]

You know what the funniest part about this whole thing is? If a cop hurts or kills an innocent because he believed he/she was in danger and it turns out that there was no life threatening element, you jump on it like crazy and condemn the officer for doing so. But if the military kills 12 innocents, it is totally ok. What is the deal dude? Is it so beat into your head that the military is full of nothing but white knights crusading for all that is good and righteous no matter what happens?

Hell, I remember posting an article a while back about all of those soldiers who urinated on the dead insurgents and you actually chastised me for calling that action into question.

In your mind everything about the government is a giant clusterfuck with no good to be found anywhere unless it somehow pertains to the armed forces.

That would be because in the US we are protected by the Constitution and cops are public servants for Americans. They should have muzzles and leashes on them to protect Americans. Troops are there for war. You can spin it as you like, Manning is a traitor and guilty of treason by his own admission. There is one punishment suitable.

I still agree with pissing on insurgents. Have you seen what they do to our LIVE troops? Try beheading with a dull blade where they have to saw through the neck and then lighting the body on fire while dragging it through a street.

[SS Junk]

Good thing you were too much of a bitch to sign up, right?

Too ad hominem for you?

[Forever_frost]

Good thing you were too much of a bitch to sign up, right?

Too ad hominem for you?

Also a good point.

[Moose242]

That would be because in the US we are protected by the Constitution and cops are public servants for Americans. They should have muzzles and leashes on them to protect Americans. Troops are there for war. You can spin it as you like, Manning is a traitor and guilty of treason by his own admission. There is one punishment suitable.

I still agree with pissing on insurgents. Have you seen what they do to our LIVE troops? Try beheading with a dull blade where they have to saw through the neck and then lighting the body on fire while dragging it through a street.

So soldiers aren't public servants? That is a shame being as how the public feeds them, clothes them, pays for their medical care, and retirement benefits. They protect us abroad, cops protect us domestically. But in your mind it is ok for soldier to kill innocents and piss on people, but cops aren't allowed to make a mistake.

[Forever_frost]

No, we're not public servants. We are called for by the constitution to defend the nation, not to serve the public. We kill things and blow things up. It's what we do. We do not offer a public service. I never said it's okay to kill innocents and piss on people. I said in a war zone if you point something at a warrior and you get shot, your fault. As far as pissing on people? They're dead, they're insurgents and I can understand the thought behind it.

Cops are bound by the constitution on what they can do, something they ignore regularly. The only way the military could infringe on your rights is if they ignored posse commatatus and engaged in actions on Americans on American soil.


You seem pretty clever, perhaps you know the difference between military and cops as well as the limitations on both. Policing isn't a federal authority, military is. Now, back on topic, defend the release of the documents

[Moose242]

No, we're not public servants. We are called for by the constitution to defend the nation, not to serve the public. We kill things and blow things up. It's what we do. We do not offer a public service. I never said it's okay to kill innocents and piss on people. I said in a war zone if you point something at a warrior and you get shot, your fault. As far as pissing on people? They're dead, they're insurgents and I can understand the thought behind it.

Cops are bound by the constitution on what they can do, something they ignore regularly. The only way the military could infringe on your rights is if they ignored posse commatatus and engaged in actions on Americans on American soil.


You seem pretty clever, perhaps you know the difference between military and cops as well as the limitations on both. Policing isn't a federal authority, military is. Now, back on topic, defend the release of the documents

You realize that is, you know, serving the public right?

[Forever_frost]

No, it's serving the Republic. Serving the public would be doing what cops and firemen do, which we're prohibited from doing outside of martial law. You do know the difference between military and civilian right? We aren't a public service and you'll figure that out if you decide you want to go on post without authorization. I can walk into any police department, hospital and fire department without issue. Try that on a base

[Moose242]

No, it's serving the Republic. Serving the public would be doing what cops and firemen do, which we're prohibited from doing outside of martial law. You do know the difference between military and civilian right? We aren't a public service and you'll figure that out if you decide you want to go on post without authorization. I can walk into any police department, hospital and fire department without issue. Try that on a base

A republic is a form of government in which the country is a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern or property of the rulers. In a republic, officers of state are appointed or elected rather than inherited. In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch.[1][2]

1. "republic", WordNet 3.0 (Dictionary.com), retrieved 20 March 2009
2. "Republic". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved August 14, 2010.

[David]

Lmao! This thread is full of hypocrisy.