Manning trial to start

[LANTIRN]

I have not followed the story closely, but as a former member of the military I will say this:

If he released classified material that put American (or Allied) lives at risk, then a trial and firing squad are probably due.

If he only released military fuck ups and cover ups, then he needs a trial but I do not believe those qualify as treason, unless of course some of them ended up putting US lives at risk, then see square one.

All fuck ups; military, civilian, law enforcement, government, etc, need to be made public. At the same time, in a theater of war there are different rules and different levels of common sense than there are on the streets of Chicago or New York. If you are in a war zone, don't point anything at troops that they might think is a weapon, unless you are really pointing a weapon at them and mean it. They will react in a second's notice, violently, and you will probably be injured or killed, and rightfully so. It is war, after all. Main Street USA, and the cops that patrol it, should play by slightly stricter rules. That being said, if troops are going house to house murdering the fuck out of civilians for fun, then that needs to end in a trial and the death penalty, if it is really happening. There is a line between lawful and unlawful killing in war; I do not know if Manning exposed on unlawful killings, classified info, or anything else, but it needs to be scrutinized carefully if there are going to be charges brought against him.

Main Street USA is a little different; cops are not at war with civilians and do not need to be breaking into houses without warrant killing people for the fuck of it (just as our troops should NOT be doing). It is common fucking sense, but then again that seems to be missing in most of the US these days.

[Forever_frost]

He released diplomatic cables, military strategy, troop numbers and buildups, everything he had access to on the Army in theater net. All of it.

[LANTIRN]

He released diplomatic cables, military strategy, troop numbers and buildups, everything he had access to on the Army in theater net. All of it.

I am sure the individual documents he released will speak for themselves in his trial. Like I said, I have not followed this very closely and certainly have not read anything he released as far as I know, so I do not know exactly what he released; as such I cannot possibly know if it really falls into the treason category. After all, the way the US media spins things, "diplomatic cables" could be Pentagon lists of prohibited establishments off base, "military strategy" could literally be chow hall times for getting everyone fed, and "troop numbers" could easily be who wears what number on the squadron football teams. Admittedly, it does not sound like he was legitimately trying to release information regarding Constitutional violations like Snowden seemed to be, but like I said I have not kept up with this story so I am trying to let the trial and evidence they discuss speak for itself. And FYI, even if he is found guilty, the odds of him facing a firing squad are about nil, considering the military hasn't done that since the '70's, I believe.

[Forever_frost]

Son of a bitch:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/bradley-manning-trial-verdict-94923.html

FORT MEADE, Md. — A military judge Tuesday acquitted Pfc. Bradley Manning of aiding the enemy — the most serious charge the Army intelligence analyst faced for leaking hundreds of thousands of classified military reports and diplomatic cables.
Manning was convicted on nearly all of the lesser charges considered by the judge, Army Col. Denise Lind, in connection with the largest breach of classified material in U.S. history.

The suspense at the court martial session was limited because Manning previously pled guilty to 10 of the 22 counts he faced. Those charges carry a potential sentence of 20 years. The aiding-the-enemy charge can lead result in a sentence of up to life in prison or event to the death penalty, but the military did not seek capital punishment in Manning’s case.
If convicted on all charges apart from aiding the enemy, Manning faced a potential sentence of up to 154 years.
Manning did not dispute the fact that he sent WikiLeaks most of the material that led to the charges against him. However, his defense argued that some of the counts were legally flawed.
(Also on POLITICO: Bradley Manning attorney: Analyst had humanitarian motives)
The Army intelligence analyst was arrested in May 2010 in Iraq at a forward operating base where he studied threats in a section of Baghdad. He’s been in custody since.
As soon as Wednesday, the court martial is expected to move into a sentencing phase. Prosecutors are expected to call witnesses demonstrating the harm caused by Manning’s disclosures, while the defense will seek to undercut that evidence and argue for leniency.
Lind ruled in January that Manning is entitled to a sentencing credit of nearly four months as a result of what she determined was unnecessarily harsh treatment the intelligence analysts received during his almost nine-month stay at a Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Va.
(Also on POLITICO: Manning prosecution sums up in WikiLeaks case)
Manning’s case is one of an unprecedented flurry of leak-related criminal prosecutions brought under the Obama administration. A total of seven such cases have been brought in the past four and a half years, more than double the number of such cases in all prior administrations combined.
The administration expressed no regret about its handling of the recent wave of cases until earlier this year, when extensive attention to the Justice Department’s seizure of Associated Press phone records and a search warrant for a Fox reporter’s emails in a leak investigation led to a review of longstanding guidelines for such probes.
After an internal review, Attorney General Eric Holder changed DOJ policies to make it more difficult to access journalists’ work materials in instances where they are not the target of an investigation.
However, the case against Manning was prosecuted in the military justice system, which is separate from the civilian courts.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2aYELhhsQ

[bcoop]

Son of a bitch:

If the evidence wasn't there, it wasn't there. I haven't really seen anything treason worthy, IMO. I haven't followed that as closely as I've followed Snowden, but in the limited reading I've done, the aiding the enemy charges seemed to be a far stretch.

[Forever_frost]

If the evidence wasn't there, it wasn't there. I haven't really seen anything treason worthy, IMO. I haven't followed that as closely as I've followed Snowden, but in the limited reading I've done, the aiding the enemy charges seemed to be a far stretch.

He admitted handing Wikileaks the information, that information was listed as classified. That information also found it's way to Al Queda. Indirectly or not, he aided the enemy by releasing the information. When he said "I did it, but..." That but should have been cut off by the sound of a rifle.

[bcoop]

He admitted handing Wikileaks the information, that information was listed as classified. That information also found it's way to Al Queda.

...

After all, the way the US media spins things, "diplomatic cables" could be Pentagon lists of prohibited establishments off base, "military strategy" could literally be chow hall times for getting everyone fed, and "troop numbers" could easily be who wears what number on the squadron football teams.

Praise Snowden, but crucify Manning. Got it.

[turboford]

Obuma will pardon him on his last day in office.

[Moose242]

I love the justice system. Zimmerman and now this? Win win!

[Forever_frost]

...




Praise Snowden, but crucify Manning. Got it.

Snowden released information about the government engaging in unconstitutional actions against ... Americans on US soil. That's what whistleblowers are supposed to do. Manning released confidential information to foreign agents about activities engaged in during war time.

You don't see the difference?

Snowden: Exposes unconstitutional actions against citizens
Manning: Releases information about military actions and diplomatic information to an agency that is not authorized to see them.

[racrguy]

Snowden released information about the government engaging in unconstitutional actions against ... Americans on US soil. That's what whistleblowers are supposed to do. Manning released confidential information to foreign agents about activities engaged in during war time.

You don't see the difference?

Snowden: Exposes unconstitutional actions against citizens
Manning: Releases information about military actions and diplomatic information to an agency that is not authorized to see them.

So it's alright for the military to just do whatever it wants to citizens of another country?

[David]

Good for him

[bcoop]

Snowden released information about the government engaging in unconstitutional actions against ... Americans on US soil. That's what whistleblowers are supposed to do. Manning released confidential information to foreign agents about activities engaged in during war time.

You don't see the difference?

Snowden: Exposes unconstitutional actions against citizens
Manning: Releases information about military actions and diplomatic information to an agency that is not authorized to see them.

Much like Matt when it comes to police matters, you are so completely blinded by fraternity when it comes to anything Military related.

[Forever_frost]

Much like Matt when it comes to police matters, you are so completely blinded by fraternity when it comes to anything Military related.

No, when it comes to military matters, if they screw up, I advocate quick and severe punishment, thus when Manning fucked up and admitted it, he should have had a .45 put through the back of his skull.

He directly violated his oath and took sensitive items and handed them to a foreign agent with the express intent to distribute it. Snowden did pretty much the same, but it was about unconstitutional actions on Americans. Do I care about government agencies violating the supreme law of the land? Absolutely.

Do I care about what happens in a theater of war to people not covered under the constitution? Yes but I care more about the safety of the soldiers fighting that war.

[Forever_frost]

So it's alright for the military to just do whatever it wants to citizens of another country?

Whatever they want? No. We have laws we must abide by and that we are bound to when we violate them. You go on a shooting spree and kill a bunch of innocents? Bullet in the head. You hand out secret information to a foreign agent who has the intent to distribute without regard to the lives it effects in theater? You die.

Simple, quick and costs the taxpayers the cost of one round.