Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Are_grits_groceries

(17,111 posts)
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 03:52 AM Nov 2012

Bradley Manning's Ready to Make a Deal

While everybody fighting through their post-election hangovers on Wednesday, Bradley Manning's defense team indicated that the imprisoned private would be open to a plea bargain. In the first day of Manning's pretrial hearing at Fort Meade in Maryland, the defense team offered a plea notice proposing that the court offer their client less charges in exchange if, in the worlds of civilian defense attorney David Coombs, Manning "would accept general responsibility for providing all charged information to WikiLeaks." This is all according to Kevin Gosztola, the author of Truth and Consequences, a book about Manning and the WikiLeaks saga, who says he was one of only two credentialed members of the press in the courtroom for the hearing.

However vague, such a request from Manning's defense isn't surprising. The plea notice came as part of a 117-page motion requesting that Manning be given a speedy trial. Totally reasonable request given the fact that Manning has been in jail for over 900 days, and his court martial still hasn't formally begun. "A military accused's right to speedy trial is fundamental," reads the motion. "The government's processing of this case makes an absolute mockery of that fundamental right." If you have any doubts about that "absolute mockery" claim, just read any of Glenn Greenwald's coverage of the Manning case. He takes absolute mockery to the level of high art.

It's hard to tell how seriously we should treat Manning's apparent willingness to accept responsibility for some of the charges. For one thing, this is not a confession but rather a request for the judge to consider bargaining with the defense team before charges are formally filed and the court martial commences. Along the same lines, this is not a guilty plea. "We're not going to know until December just what he offered, or what the government response is," Nathan Fuller, a representative of the Bradley Manning Support Network who's been following the trial closely, told Forbes. "The government is trying to make it out to be a reckless, wanton act, but it's more likely that Manning is willing to concede to releasing a limited amount of information and not in a reckless manner."

So we'll have to wait and see if Manning's defense team will have any luck getting things moving and possibly keeping Manning from facing life in prison. It looks like these pretrial hearings will continue through the year and the court martial will formally begin in 2013. That'll put Manning's number of days in custody in the thousands.
http://m.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/11/bradley-mannings-ready-make-deal/58813/

Sigh........

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
1. anarchists get no symphathy from me. this is not the 1960s. We grew up.
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 04:20 AM
Nov 2012

And he must be guilty if he wants to whittle down to a deal.

Not a fan of his.or of this tactic in the year 2012.

And please do NOT compare it to the 1960s...that was 60 years ago almost and well, we don't walk to school in bare feet and live like Abe Lincoln in log cabins and chop down cherry trees like George Washington did or did not do anymore either.

And in the 1960s we like Ralph Nader before he sold us all down the river in 2000 with his treasonous lies

And 3000 people lost their lives on 9-11 regardless of who what did whatever before or after and there are worse people out there now then ever before.

Anyhow

Forward, not back to the 1960s.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
9. Forward!
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 06:14 AM
Nov 2012

don't elect Jeb in 2016, and you won't have to worry about a Bush in power again.

And anyhow, Bush/Cheney would never be convicted, (bush that is) therefore it is meaningless

Look how Bush41 pardoned the people including himself from Iran/hostage/guns,etc.
Look how the ACLU got the shredder off on technicalities

Why waste time and capital on a stupid trial for Bush that would lead nowhere

And how many tens or millions would that waste anyhow???

Besides, Ido not see any thing that Bradley did that helped mankind at all.

Anarchists cannot blackmail and dictate

Shieet happens, look how OJ was tried twice for the same crime after being found not guily by a jury of his peers

Besides2-Bush/Cheney have NOTHING at all to do with this topic (which was my point in bringing up OJ).

One does not plea if one is innoocent.


They remind me of quack doctor Wakefield.(they being bradley and assange)

 

Lightbulb_on

(315 posts)
4. Don't forget...
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 05:27 AM
Nov 2012

They made the diplomatic process more difficult by making other countries less likely to talk to us.

That's something...

patrice

(47,992 posts)
5. I really ought to give the answer to that question an honest effort, but I can't, for the life of
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 05:31 AM
Nov 2012

me, think of anything useful that has come out of all of this.

There was a big fuss, something about banking info, that accompanied the last document dump, way over a year ago now, right? and then . . . nothing.

tblue

(16,350 posts)
6. He's not been found guilty yet. So technically he's innocent.
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 05:45 AM
Nov 2012

No offense intended, but your emotions don't make laws and don't constitute due process. If he's guilty, put him on trial and let the court come to that conclusion.

Until then, he has yet to be charged or tried per the law and the Constitution regardless of the personal opinions of outside observers like you and me.

Better hope you are never accused of something and thrown in the brig without due process, with no chance to be heard in a court of law. Because if it could happen to Manning it could happen to anyone. And that includes you. This sets a very dangerous precedent, especially for future administrations. It's terrifying actually.

 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
8. That's pedantic hair-splitting.
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 05:50 AM
Nov 2012

He definitely did what he's accused of. I don't really think there's any question of that. His entire defence as I understand it comes down to questions regarding his mental state and culpability for his actions, not whether he committed those actions.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Bradley Manning's Ready t...