Bradley Manning treated more harshly than a terrorist, lawyer argues

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

The lawyer defending Bradley Manning against charges that he "aided the enemy" by disclosing state secrets to the whistleblower website WikiLeaks, is arguing that US soldiers are being treated more harshly in application of the law than terrorists.

David Coombs, the civilian lawyer who has been representing the soldier for the past two years after he was arrested in Iraq on suspicion of being the WikiLeaks source, will be pressing his case in a military court next week. In a motion that he has lodged with the court as part of the lead up to a full court martial, he warns that unless the "aiding the enemy" charge is clarified it would leave Manning in a more onerous legal position than terrorists facing exactly the same count.

"It defies all logic to think that a terrorist would fare better in an American court for aiding the enemy than a US soldier would," Coombs writes in the motion.

Aiding the enemy is the most serious of the 22 counts that Manning is facing. In the rank of military charges, it is rated very close to treason and technically carries the death penalty, though the prosecution in this case have indicated that they will not push for that.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/12/bradley-manning-treated-terrorists

[lovuian]

1. yep he was tortured no other way to put it

America tortures its prisoners and tortures its own military

I know a Navy Seal who was waterboarded and admitted he volunteered because it was for his so called TRAINING!!!

All I can say is he was put through a brainwashing program ...of which a person doesn't come out of this TRAINING
the same ....


We torture our own and that disgusts me
because it is not beneficial ...in fact the person is damaged afterwards

Solitary is torture ....what Manning went through is torture
and he still has not had his trial

[msanthrope]

2. Um, his attorney is not claiming torture, nor in any way discussing his

confinement conditions.

His attorney is submitting a member instruction clarifying the MR element of a particular charge.

He is comparing offenses, and their MRs, in the UCMJ to the ones in the 2009 MCA, and this think this argument, while it captures a headline, is not a great one.

[armodem08]

5. They do it the military, especially Special Forces for a reason... Look up SERE. n/t

[roody]

3. Who is the enemy?

[msanthrope]

4. Al Qaeda. nt

[Ashgrey77]

6. That sure is convenient,

a shadowy group of unidentified people that we can never beat as our enemies. The perpetual war. Torture, preemptive wars, state surveillance. The TPTB have been lusting for this conflict as long as I can remember. There were whole thinktanks devoted to this concept, PNAC being a recent major one that is well documented. It only took one terrorist act and 2 words, "Al Qaeda".

[roody]

7. I thought that we beat them.

[Sirveri]

8. I'm not sure I agree with his reasoning.

Aiding the Enemy, you expect that from, sort of, from foreigners. But as a US soldier you're in a position of trust, aiding the enemy as a US soldier is arguably worse because of the implicit betrayal involved.

Not to say that this somehow justifies his treatment, mainly just commenting on the logic of the statement.

[msanthrope]

10. You've grasped what will undo the defense's argument...Congress can and does

allow harsher penalties for military members who break the law.

On the one hand, you have a soldier who took a vow to uphold and protect the Constitution. If he saw crimes, then he had absolute immunity in reporting---and--a duty--to report them to Congress under the provisions of the Military Whistleblowers Act of 1988. Instead, he chose to impress his hacker friends.


On the other hand, you have an enemy, who swore no oath to your Constitution.


The former is gonna get a harsher penalty, every single time, meted out to him by military justice.

[bemildred]

11. +1.

Quite right.

[bemildred]

9. Bradley Manning is a much bigger threat to the national security apparatus than a terrorist.

Terrorists justify the national security state. Manning demonstrated that it is useless.

[msanthrope]

12. No--all he did was demostrate that the Army needed to update its equipment.

In failing to do his duty, that of reporting to Congress his findings of war crimes, Manning stymied any real investigation into the actions that precipitated those shown in "Collateral Murder."

At the time Manning chose to leak, Dennis Kucinich was the Chairman of a Subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Bernie Sanders is on the Senate Committee for Veteran's Affairs. Manning could have handed information to either one of them...with TOTAL IMMUNITY....under the MWPA of 1988. Arguably, he had the duty to do so--to force a government investigation into what he saw as crimes.

Instead, he chose to impress his hacker friends.

The prosecution will point this out, and the military jury will be ruthless. And any real investigation into any actual crimes???? Undone by the hubris of an alleged rapist, and a soldier who couldn't hack it.