Pfc. Bradley Manning offers guilty plea in Wikileaks case
Source: Christian Science Monitor
The U.S. Army soldier charged with sending reams of government secrets to WikiLeaks is offering to plead guilty to some less serious offenses.
Pfc. Bradley Manning's civilian defense attorney, David Coombs, revealed the offer Wednesday during a pretrial hearing that continues Thursday.
Coombs says Manning isn't pleading guilty to the offenses charged by the government. He's offering to take responsibility for less serious offenses that are encapsulated within the charged crimes.
Even if the court accepts the offer, military prosecutors could still try to prove Manning guilty of the more serious charges. They include aiding the enemy, punishable by life imprisonment.
Read more: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/1108/Pfc.-Bradley-Manning-offers-guilty-plea-in-Wikileaks-case
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
avebury
(10,952 posts)testify against Julian Assange if the US can ever get their hands on Assange.
randome
(34,845 posts)He stole classified military documents and gave them away to a foreign media organization without taking more than a cursory glance at them.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)He hasn't been tried, and may never have a fair trial. "Without taking more than a cursory glance at them". Where did that come from?
randome
(34,845 posts)Unless he is a speed reader on the scale of Superman.
cprise
(8,445 posts)government doesn't look too closely either. Documents with all but three words redacted are not unheard-of, and a few years ago they started denying that some documents even exist.
Not only has our government gone on a military rampage abroad, but analysts are taken aback at the sheer scope of material that has been reclassified as secret.
Compared to the actions of the US government, claiming that Manning's actions were rash is stretching things more than a little. A government, BTW, that domestically has taken the position we are to surrender private information to them without warrants. I.E. privacy for government and no one else. They wipe their asses with FOIA and the Fourth Amendment, and they set the standard for rashness.
If you want society to err on the side of government secrecy and the "security" establishment, then what you're really arguing for is a police state.
randome
(34,845 posts)He's a psychologically disturbed individual with gender identity disorders ("Not that there's anything wrong with that."
. He was found in a fetal position on the floor after having carved 'I want' into a chair.
If you want some sort of civilian review board to be in charge of classifying military documents, I get that. What I can't get is why anyone in their right mind would think that someone who is NOT in his right mind should be making national security decisions for us.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)identity disorder--it was not the prosecution who brought that up--
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/21/9590399-manning-defenses-focus-on-gender-identity-disorder-alarms-some?lite
Plus, he assaulted a female superior officer, and called her a gay slur--conduct unbecoming, IMHO.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)What was this young man thinking of? Military law is much more severe that civilian law and with good reason, the military is all about discipline and order and this alleged behavior cannot be tolerated to any degree.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)issues going on at once, who fell in with a certain white-haired gentleman who offered him some sense of 'belonging.'
I think Manning was vulnerable, and I think that was taken advantage of. I do think he is responsible for his actions, but I think that the defense has a serious mitigation factor in sentencing regarding his mental issues.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)We'll just have to wait and see. 
cprise
(8,445 posts)Its a very respectable quote that doesn't suggest we maintain an earnest, well-adjusted piety in order for our deeds to be respected. If that is a requirement, then I suggest that someplace affiliated with the Heritage Foundation would be more comfortable for you than DU.
Understanding the motivations of mass murderers would also seem to be a priority, but not against a clearly detectable background of moral apathy. Claims about what Manning's state of mind signifies or the scale of the data he took also strike me as the pot calling the kettle black. There are numerous pro-establishment double-standards at work here.
It would perplex me if anyone would submit their whistleblowing activities to a government that had recently taken to the following activities:
* Quashing civil rights lawsuits against it
* Spying on its citizens without warrants on a massive scale
* Setting out to make anti-war and anti-capitalist groups look like terrorist havens
Manning was correctly suspicious of any purely US institution to justly handle whistleblowing activity involving war crimes. The one time he did trust the American establishment was his demise.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)protected.
He chose Assange. He chose poorly.
cprise
(8,445 posts)...and Wikileaks' ledgers and history back up that assertion. They were materially supported by and worked with world-class journalists in the process. The upshot is that the newspapers get Assange to take the heat for what they published (and also the mistakes they made with the data).
The alternative you suggest would have been much less certain against the pattern of atrocities he saw. But go ahead, tell me those Liberal Senators are effective against US war criminals. They can't even get Wall St. banks to answer most of their questions at hearings.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)The whistleblower protection laws, in general, don't do what they promise: protect whistleblowers.
And the idea that individual congresspeople would have protected Manning against retaliation by the Defense establishment would be laugh-out-loud funny if so many ( I'll wager they're generationally post VN isn the vast majority of cases) seemingly otherwise intelligent DUers didn't believe it.
Or SAY they do.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)cprise
(8,445 posts)and a fine example of the point of view it represents.
You want everyone else to play nice while the military-industrial complex gets to be 'creative' with our civil rights, torture and assassination to serve an authoritarian interpretation of events ("Not that there's anything wrong with that." .
Bureaucratic committee? Sure! Congress can't even get access to the kind of information they were accustomed (and entitled) to getting. But we can have a citizen's review board to judge the aesthetic value of black lines, which could be arranged into pleasing figleaf patterns.
Manning provided information about an out of control enterprise and the atrocities it committed to an agent of the western media -- which is exactly what Wikileaks was at the time: an entity funded (though not created) by organizations like the Associated Press, NY Times and The Guardian to get the dirt they had been too afraid or self-interested to investigate. The NY Times in particular had lost credibility during the Bush years as a war cheerleader and mouthpiece; Later, they had the anti-war movement and its popularity with which to contend. Wikileaks was not an "enemy" of the American people and Manning had every reason to trust them.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)He didn't. He made the choice of dumping documents to Wikileaks. I doubt he thought overly much about whistleblowing. He thought it was exciting to be a spy, IMO. Well, he got caught.
demwing
(16,916 posts)If I had the slightest reason to believe you didn't say that to CYA for the bullshit slur, I wouldn't be putting your ass on ignore.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Plain and simple, so I'd stop trying to sound like it, if I were you. It doesn't hold water.
It is, in fact bovine fecal material with all of the stink and presence of a bold faced lie.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)have made a reasonable argument in court as to the 'purity' of his motives.
cprise
(8,445 posts)and other nefarious habits of data-gorging that DHS commits against American citizens.
Their city-sized data centers continually piling up information they can (and do) use against us on an almost routine basis. They can instantly know everyone who is associated with any private gathering or protest group, replete with psychological profiles suggesting who can be most readily cajoled into committing one of their faux terrorist acts (which are not really faux in the sense that the DHS have used them to make the population fearful of losing life or limb). They know 100x more than they need to sabotage the reputation of any group or movement that presents a serious challenge to their power base.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)491k War Logs before their release.
I mean, it's awesome rhetoric, though.
cprise
(8,445 posts)Which would have been very easy to do, completely anonymously and without personal consequences using Tor or similar software.
Wikileaks enlisted a team including its own people with journalists from the NY Times and The Guardian to review the information before release. They did this, releasing information in dribs and drabs in successive news stories. The reason it eventually all got out after a few months is that one of the Guardian journalists mistakenly included a decryption key in one of its public downloads.
Initially I also felt that Manning had acted rashly, but the more I observed the facts and the way people treated the issue in debates like this, the more I realized he maintained a pretty high standard by only communicating with Wikileaks, a process that included difficult delays and protocols when he could have simply uploaded the info unprotected to just about anywhere to dozens of places. Manning's critics want us to believe this wasn't in his mind, but Wikileaks had a history of vetting the info it releases and working with the press.
If I weigh the government's recklessness against Manning's, I think Manning comes out way ahead. We'd have to reject the traditional concept of the press acting as the Fourth Estate to say he wasn't trying to be at least somewhat responsible.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)cprise
(8,445 posts)Newspapers and Senate offices do not know what they're doing in that respect. This is something Manning would have also been aware of.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and why he did it, before making embarrassing statements like this. It's not hard to do either since he has actually spoken for himself. There is no reason for anyone not to know exactly why Manning chose to do what he did.
But for the benefit of those reading, Manning read and knew what was in the documents he released. He is an exceptionally intelligent individual and in his own words has explained why, after witnessing war crimes, reporting them, then reading the documents (that question was asked of him btw, 'did you read those documents') and finding proof of war crimes, being told to forget what he had seen, he decided to become a whistle blower.
Most of the documents were from before and during the Bush years. I believe that the effort to defend the Bush War criminals is a disgrace. And anyone who condemns what Manning did IS defending Bush.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)but in a court of law, that's irrelevant, he signed an oath of secrecy, rightly or wrongly, that every service personnel signs when handling sensitive docs., and he allegedly violated it. Whether or not he thought that those docs contained evidence of war crimes makes no difference in the law, he is alleged to have turned over classified docs over to a foreign entity which is highly illegal. And if this young man is convicted of such crimes, he is looking at the rest of his life in a Fed. prison.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)He could not have been prosecuted, and something might have been done about any crimes he found.
Instead, he turned everything over to a commercial entity.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)and if this young man is convicted of that, he is looking at the rest of his life in a Fed super max prison.
What most don't understand here is that the law doesn't care if that he may have found evidence of crime, that's irrelevant, what the law cares about is the fact that he allegedly violated the secrecy agreement he signed when he got his security clearance and then allegedly turned over classified docs to a foreign entity.
And the UCMJ take these alleged crimes very seriously and the penalties are very harsh.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Act of 1988, and been completely immune to prosecution. He could have given relevant documents to Kucinich, or Sanders, or Franken, and been okay.
He chose to fall in with Wikileaks, and Assange. I think Julian simply didn't care about Manning, who will take the fall for him.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)Julian doesn't give two shits about Manning, he just wanted to embarrass the US govt. and now if Manning is convicted, which I believe is a foregone conclusion, will pay a heavy price for it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)it. It is laughable to say he would have kindly received in the current atmosphere had he attempted to use Whistle Blower protection. Show me ONE whistle blower over the past number of years who themselves have no ended up being prosecuted.
War criminals are a protected entity in this country at the moment.
Why did Ellsberg not do what you suggest, why did HE choose also, like Manning, to 'use a commercial entity' to tell the truth about Vietnam?
Ellsberg fully supports Manning, and I think I will accept his analysis of this case rather than those who still cling to the notion that Whistle Blowers are protected in this country especially when it comes to our Commercial, For Profit Wars.
hack89
(39,171 posts)who did he tell about war crimes?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Manning did about the war crimes he witnessed, at this late stage, then I do not understand why you are contributing to this discussion at all.
Are you really unaware of the steps taken by Manning to report the war crimes he witnessed? If you know so little about this case, why are you not taking the trouble, as many of us did, to learn something about it before making statements that have zero basis in fact? Democrats generally educate themselves about the issues they decide to expound with any authority on them.
It's stunning that you would even ask that question AFTER having made up your mind, apparently with no knowledge at all of this case.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I posted a detailed timeline from Firedoglake - I understand what happened. Hence my question to you.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)crimes up the chain of command did not work and it was therefore necessary to become a whistle blower.
And do not put words in my mouth. I am confident in the ability of people here to read what I said and your deliberate and disingenuous attempt to try to change what I said, is apparent for all to read and only reflects badly on you.
hack89
(39,171 posts)instead of evading the question. You might be right for all we know.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Amazing anyone would make such a statement on DU, considering how public that information has been.
But, it does explain your amazingly uninformed comments on this case. I will give them all the credibility they deserve from now on.
hack89
(39,171 posts)you need to stop bluffing and provide a link.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)demonstrated you have no knowledge of this case yet are perfectly prepared to expound on something you have now demonstrated you know nothing about.
I am perfectly willing to continue to play this game you are resorting to in an effort to hide the fact that you don't even know the basic facts of this case and each time you ask for information you expected people to assume you had, it only further proves my point.
If you ever get around to learning what almost everyone else knows regarding the steps taken by Manning before he became a Whistle Blower, we can start all over again. But when you lack even basic knowledge, so easily available, and then resort to these childish games, there is no place to even begin a discussion with you.
hack89
(39,171 posts)certainly the impression you are leaving. You made an assertion - you need to back it up.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)What Manning did is public knowledge. It would be impossible to lie about it. And to even think that would be possible further demonstrates how little you know about this case, and worse, how unwilling you are to do even basic research.
hack89
(39,171 posts)in the real world people are expected to back up their arguments. You have been consistently sloppy in your "facts" - this is not the first time you have resorted to bluster and hand waving when challenged.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)speak about an issue, they should have at least a basic knowledge of the subject. Sorry if that bar is too high. It's not my job to educate people about what is by now common knowledge, who refuse to educate themselves and who generally ignore facts even when presented with them.
Thanks for keeping the thread kicked btw.
hack89
(39,171 posts)common knowledge my ass - notice how no one has jumped in to back you up. You were caught in a lie - please be honest with yourself even if you refuse to be honest with me.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)this case and every comment you made so far just emphasizes that.
As far as people 'jumping in to back me up'. Lol, If only you knew. Let me give you a hint, I am one of the few left here who even bothers to enter into any discussion with you as I have been told by many other DUers. The advice I have received is to 'ignore' your comments.
But I like to give everyone a chance regardless of how 'rude, over-the-top' or uninformed they are.
hack89
(39,171 posts)and was ignored. I am merely asking you to prove it. Instead you launch into this huge song and dance.
hack89
(39,171 posts)you need to talk to his lawyer - you appear to have facts he doesn't have.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Your tactic here is unpersuasive.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)was done to verify Manning's statement re reporting his superiors to whom he reported war crimes?
I don't think you get what your friends are trying to do. Doesn't matter, most everyone else watching does.
I don't play their games, they are well known for these games which is why I am among the few who even bother to respond to them.
Ask them for evidence of what they are attempting to imply, unless you don't understand what they are doing of course and actually believe they are serious. 
treestar
(82,383 posts)so you dump it back on the debate opponent to prove your negative, calling them ignorant. Both fallacious tactics in a debate.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)In fact I believe I said the exact opposite and gave the reasons why. Which of course should be obvious to anyone watching what has been happening to Whistle Blowers in this country.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)It is almost the exact same attempt to place words in my comments which are not there. Weird to say the least. Read my response to your and Hack's almost identical disingenuous deliberate misinterpretation of my words for the answer.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)case??
I have had the impression from your own claims that you are an expert on the Manning case, yet you do not know the steps Manning took to report the crimes he witnessed before he became a Whistle Blower?
No wonder I have found your comments to be very lacking in facts regarding this case. I actually did give you credit, apparently wrongly, for at least having that very public information.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Hack89 even gave you a very helpful link. Go ahead, show us what you mean.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Had he used it, surely it would be in the news. It's a high profile news case.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)read the comments I directed to YOU to show you how wrong you are.
Since you are still erroneously implying that I ever said Manning used the Act, despite my detailed comment to you which you have refused to acknowledge, I am asking you again:
Please post a comment of mine where I said that Manning used the Whistle Blower Act.
I have asked you to do this already, I have told you I never said that, yet you continue to pretend I did.
It is very disturbing frankly when someone becomes so biased against posters they are willing to do what you are doing
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Manning exposed many human rights violations, such as child sex-trafficking by US contractors, with ISAFs foreknowledge and decided lack of action, among many other things. Out of thousands of documents, he is a hero to me for exposing just that one thing. He many have broken some written law but he is certainly a whistleblower. He did the right thing and that should be mitigating to an America(and a court system) with morals.
Meanwhile the DoJ has still not gone after those contractors with no comment given when pressed by reporters. I'm glad we have priorities.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Does anything in it prove child sex trafficking? Or just suggest it? Anyone can make an accusation.
And was any US law violated? We can't control the fact that other countries may fail to prosecute it. Which of our laws was violated and do we have jurisdiction?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)There is simply no way--
January 5-•CDNE Afghanistan (91,000 approx) [Afghan War Logs] and CDNE Iraq reports (400,000 approx) [Iraq War Logs] are put on an SD card [that CCIU agents will later claim was found in Manning's aunt's residence]
http://firedoglake.com/bradley-manning-wikileaks-timeline/
hack89
(39,171 posts)Manning could have selectively released a few documents to make his point and to trigger a larger investigation. That is defensible because he can honestly say he read and understood each document.
Manning release over 500,000 documents. There is no way he read them all. He simply down loaded reams of classified information and sent it unread to a foreign news agency. That is illegal.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and the only way that will stop is when the American people support those who have the courage to expose them. So whether it is inadvertant or not, when you condemn the whistle blowers, you support the War Criminals. At least face the facts.
I have zero doubt that if the timing of these leaked documents exposing Bush War crimes had been different, had it occurred in 2007, the entire 'Left' would have made a hero out of Manning and would have been reading them and publishing them all over the place.
What all of this has revealed other than Bush War Crimes, is how hypocritical some on the Left in the US really are. And how little many of them ever cared about Bush War Crimes, but used them only for political purposes.
I guess we were all naive enough to believe otherwise. And I am encouraged by those who continue to stick with the facts, to oppose War Crimes as they always did, and to support Whistle Blowers. But it sure has been an awakening to find oneself having the same arguments with some on the Left re Bush war crimes, that we used to think we would only have to engage in with the Right.
hack89
(39,171 posts)he had legal options - he ignored them.
Secondly, read what I said. What is indefensible is downloading classified documents and sending them to Wikileaks without knowing their contents.
cprise
(8,445 posts)You would much rather give benefit of the doubt to people who torture and kill than to those who wield a mouse and keyboard. With no apparent impetus to go after the war criminals at all (much less make them a priority) your take on this issue exemplifies the culture of protecting them. You cannot successfully debate this issue from such a steep one-sidedness.
BTW, a few gigabytes of data is tiny compared to the private info the US government and its captains of industry compile about us year in and year out.
hack89
(39,171 posts)if he had simply released the helicopter video we wouldn't be having this discussion.
But he did ignore the laws that would have provided him immunity from prosecution. Now if he had followed the law and was ignored then Manning would have a stronger defense. But there is no evidence whatsoever that he attempted to follow the law.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)by the Whistle Blowers Act over the past several decades and you will, unless of course you don't want to, understand why someone as intelligent as he is, knew what would happen had he chosen that route.
He chose the only legal option open to him. He reported the war crimes he became aware of to his superiors. Why did THEY not choose the LEGAL OPTIONS open to THEM and do what was right, which would have made it unnecessary for him to take any further action?? Please explain why they ignored reports of War Crimes?
I don't expect an answer, the question if really for those who have a genuine interest in the actual facts of this case.
You have been told many times that he knew what was in the documents. And he himself answered that question btw. Again demonstrating how little you know about this case.
hack89
(39,171 posts)he knowingly broke the law. And accomplished exactly nothing.
He is not intelligent. He is an emotionally screwed up young man who made a mistake he will regret for the rest of his life. Hopefully Assange, the man that used and discarded manning like a kleenex, will feel some remorse. But I doubt it.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)YES
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)... and doesn't distinguish whistle blowing from crimes against humanity.
Maybe I should accuse you of defamation of character. Then, of spreading rumors and inciting mischief.
Oh, by the way, if fair is fair, you shouldn't be able to speak or have a lawyer after getting cuffed, jailed, stripped naked and made to stand in stress poses.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)released documents. We have learned one thing about this country. No war criminal will ever be prosecuted here, not until we evolve as a nation. But anyone who exposes them as Manning did, and Wikileaks, will be pursued and punished, ensuring that no other person will reveal what they know.
He knew he was violating laws and was willing to take that chance in order to expose war crimes, as he said himself. But he thought that there would be a reaction from the people when they learned what he had learned and that his government would do what is right. I imagine his biggest disappointment is not going to prison, but the realization that war crimes ARE acceptable in this country and that he was very naive to think otherwise.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Unless we are allowed to face what our nation is doing, I don't know how we'll ever evolve.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)not in some back-hills in Pakistan getting blown to bits by our drones.
navarth
(5,927 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)He's been locked up for a long time and probably would have finished his volunteer military service by now if he hadn't got caught up in this. I wish him well.
and hopefully it doesn't include some agreement to testify against Assange.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Bush and all the other war criminals who made torture acceptable in this country. Manning actually believed we were better than that. He also knew he would most likely be in trouble if he became a whistle blower, but like most people who expose the crimes of the powerful, he was willing to take that chance.
It really is a disgrace that it is the messengers who are being pursued, while the criminals not only walk free but are treated as if they deserved respect.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Such as were imposed on Germany by the Allied occupiers. It's not a matter of covering up and making it right. We've taken a different course because the solution is the collapse of the federal government itself. That is why it's been hands off and is impracticable within any one country. Many Germans helped with bringing them to justice, but that was not a function of the government of Hitler.
It had to be vanquished, disappeared, destroyed or in other terms, made defunct. Consider that for a moment, and the many aspirations to justice that the Founders wrote about. Think of the Bill of Rights and Constitution being tossed aside in totality, rewritten by a foreign occupier and the government that so many people count on, being gone. What then would we be defending, when it's gone, what charter of human rights would replace it at that juncture, I don't know nor trust. I'm just speaking the history, not mocking the passion, but there are reasons not to do this, even though it leaves our country with a blood debt, that can only be paid by the forgiveness of those harmed, if they are willing.
There is no easy solution to such crimes in the satisfying, Biblical tone of justice meted out at Nuremberg, that have been committed by this country. That was the stuff of movie lore, quite dramatic. To hold those trials and imprison required the German people to be under the boot of the Allies.
We may talk of the boot in the face, but we have never seen it as the people of Europe did, or Asia, under the Axis powers. Nor did we live through an occupation such as Iraq suffered. The good do not always win in revolutions and wars. Spain was not freed from Franco for many years after a horrendous civil war and slaughter with the help of the Axis. That was one context in which the rebels lost and should have won.
The outcome of wars and revolutions are uncertain, and in many instances have replaced better system with dictatorships. The Weimar Republic was replaced by those who were angry and impatient for change at any cost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic
We may want to think that the Allied occupation was handled in a just and humane fashion as our national media says. But in accounts I have read and with people I have discussed who lived through it over there, it was nothing like the civil order we have here, no matter how quickly reconstructed or the best intentions which did work out in the end.
The lived through a war and an aftermath we cannot imagine. They could be herded to fit the occupiers for work and their legal protections could have all been eliminated. This is just as any defeated country's people are. The only way to bring actors such as Bush, et al, to that situation would be from the outside. Most people have not considered the amount of force required to punish this cabal, or how enmeshed we are with our government, good and bad. If we look back through history, every POTUS could be convicted of crimes against humanity if we go for pure justice for all the native peoples and everyone who was slaughtered in every other cause.
The price of civil disobedience is not an easy one to bear in any part of history. As I have said before, I think Manning did what he thought was right, but I'm not so generous to those who are not in his position and made their names off of his sacrifice. He joined up and took an oath with an organization that does tolerate that.
He is the one suffering for his act of conscience. But there are those in that organization who will never feel the sympathy for him that I do, because I am not part of that organization and have not lived by their code. I still wish him the best and hope he will discharge whatever they demand of him and get to go home as soon as possible.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)who were victims of Germany's Government. And the last thing any American would want would be to have any outside entity do what we ourselves ought to be doing as it is obvious how disastrous that would be.
But we do have laws here, many of which were violated. And if you are correct that every US President could be convicted of war crimes, then we are clearly on the wrong path.
The only way to change a country's direction is for the people to refuse to close their eyes and continue to demand that we live up to what we claim to be. It certainly won't change if the people either defend those policies for whatever reason, or remain ignorant of them. Knowledge is power and far too many people here, no different from any other country, find it hard to face the reality that their own leaders may not be what they think they are.
Prosecuting criminals serves as a deterrent for future criminals. But when we not only refuse to prosecute them, but protect them, refuse to even acknowledge the crimes, and then go further and persecute Whistle Blowers and the Press, there is little hope of ever resolving these issues and every reason to believe things will become even worse.
At the very least there should have been hearings after Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and steps taken to condemn and ban the practices that led to those crimes. The hearings we did have, did not include those most responsible.
One thing that won't work is to continue to defend them. And the Press, Wikileaks, are the only way for people to learn what is going on. I am not sure what you mean by 'taking advantage' of Manning. Wikileaks was a functioning media organization which had received awards for exposing corruption in other governments, long before Manning decided to use them. They have never revealed the identities of any of their sources despite many threats from dictators and other corrupt entities. They did not reveal Manning's identity either.
During the Bush years, the Left was thrilled to see new media like Wikileaks begin to step into the void left by our own media which had become nothing but a propaganda machine for the very people they should have been exposing. But the timing of the Wikileaks documents, which mostly dealt with Bush war crimes, seems to have either silenced some on the Left, or caused them to change their minds about having a truly free press, something they so loudly advocated for during the Bush years.
So long as we allow politics to guide our principles regarding what is right and what is wrong, I think there is zero hope of anything changing, and worse, we can only look forward to things getting worse. Eg, the next time a Republican President is in office, can the 'left' now credibly criticize them anymore? Some maybe, but what we have learned is that even though most of the Wikileaks documents are from the Bush years, the Left has done a complete about turn regarding the very crimes they were so vocal about back then. How beautifully this works for those who start illegal wars.
treestar
(82,383 posts)under the Whistleblower Act.
And the sheer volume is what undermines the idea he was doing it in good faith. And who he exposed it to.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)knew had consequences as he said.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Then link to that information. If he did, then we can examine that act to see what happened with it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I've been through this with your friends already. But, I always give people the benefit of the doubt and will assume you did not read the thread before jumping in and launching your ad hom attacks on me and are seriously interested in facts.
So, let's do this all over again. Maybe I'll get an answer rather than game playing this time.
Please link me to one Whistle Blower who has been protected by the US Government/Military or any other Government entity under the Whistle Blower Act over the past several decades?
If you read the thread before attacking me you would see this game has been played already and no answer has been provided.
But maybe you can provide an answer to this question. I look forward to an honest answer rather than the boring games being played already.
treestar
(82,383 posts)So back it up. You're not playing according to the rules.
I don't have to prove anyone else ever used that act - it has nothing to do with whether Manning used it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)reported the crimes to his superiors. Now post a link to my comment that said he used the Whistle Blower Protection Act. Even your friends appear to know that, being that it is they who are asking ME why he did not.
Totally contrary to your false assertion here, I have explained why HE DID NOT use that and have asked for info on any Whistle Blower who successfully has over the past number of decades.
How about you read the thread before jumping in and making embarrassing assertions like this?
I will await the link to my comment claiming he used the Whistle Blower Act. You surely didn't make this false assertion with nothing to back it up.
treestar
(82,383 posts)If not, he should have. He had that avenue available. So our country provides for that rather than being so darned evil. He could have thus gotten the bad guys without getting some good guys too and giving a foreign nutcase a lot of his own country's classified documents.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)answered.
I asked you the same question I asked msanthrope. Name ONE whistle blower who has been protected by the Whistle Blower Protection Act over the past several decades and you will have your answer.
An answer already provided, inadvertently I am sure, by msanthrope.
You really shouldn't jump into threads before you read them.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Once he was out of Quantico, he was moved to a medium level security pod in Leavenworth. When (and if) he gets conviction of the most serious crimes against him, he goes across the street to fed max. Tha's not pretty.
So, his defense probably told him that it was in his interest to do as much time in this med sec, because that will be counted against any future sentence.
Which means that pretty early on in the process, Manning and lawyer knew he had left enough evidence to convict him.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)I still maintain that he is/was an idealistic young man, and for that reason I feel great sympathy for him. If I recall correctly, even his own father who was military, was not kind about it.
When one gets into such an organization, it is not the same as we who live in civilian life or even with corporate rules, but a tougher standard. I feel no sympathy for those who have used his plight to advance themselves. They are not the ones facing this. I want him to get this behind him and to heal from all that has befallen him, hopefully with his family or friends.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)brought him the acceptance and adulation I think he craved. For a brief time, I think he found acceptance with the Wikileaks crowd, and that's what pushed him to do wrong.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)acceptance and adulation' (a complete distortion of Manning's own stated reasons for what he did btw) they craved over the past number of years?
I would seriously love to know that Whistle Blowers have been protected for telling the truth but I personally do not know of a single case. It's entirely possible that you know of such cases, and I will be seriously thrilled if such cases, even one, exist. Thanks in advance.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)That you unaware of a single case of the use of the Military Whistleblower's act is unsurprising---you once defended Anwar Awlaki as a "non-violent" cleric and insisted he had been in the US as recently as two years before his death....
Do some googling, and familiarize yourself with what you are debating about.
FYI--still waiting for you to document, upthread, what legal steps Manning took. There's an excellent timeline of Manning's adventures on FireDogLake.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Your statement, just to review: He could have used the Military Whistleblwoers Protection Act
I guess Manning knew our history of protecting Whistle Blowers also.
Thanks for making my point.
I rest my case!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)MWPA of 1988 isn't surprising to me.
That you know nothing about the MWPA cases arising from the Mississippi Guard doesn't surprise me.
That you think you made a point? Well, okay then, you made a point. But not the one you think you did.
FYI--Hack89 and I are still waiting for you to disclose the "public" information that proves Mr. Manning took legal steps to whistleblow. I hope you also send it on to his attorneys--they seem to have missed it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)about that.
Now you are attempting to back away from the facts you finally admitted.
As I said, I rest my case.
Manning chose the only option open to him after reporting the crimes he personally witnessed to his commanding officers and finding out that they had no intention of doing anything about those crimes. And once again, thank you for proving my point.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)was a poor choice.
Still waiting for you to document the legal steps you assert Manning took. Make sure you let his attorneys know, since they haven't found them.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Seriously I think you should try to develop some more effective debating skills.
Credibility is important. When someone is obviously playing games, they lose credibility. And this is something you do all the time when you are trying to defend the indefensible.
The fact is there is NO protection for Whistle Blowers in this country.
The fact is that Manning reported the crimes he witnessed to his superior officers and was ignored and the crimes continued.
The fact is he then had no other option but to become a Whistle Blower which is what he did.
The proof that he was correct to make that choice is that not one of those who committed war crimes has even had a slap on the wrist while the messengers have all been persecuted for telling the truth.
I notice that the critics of Manning and Wikileaks (and by extension (see Lieberman, Palin et al) the NYT, The Guardian, La Monde and all of the other press who published material leaked to Wikileaks), never discuss the truths that were revealed, they struggle so hard NOT to discuss the crimes that have been revealed. And they never accuse Wikileaks or Manning or the Press who reported on the crimes, of LYING.
So what we are left with are some more facts. No one denies the truth told by Manning, yet they condemn those who published the facts.
And those same critics will never be found discussing the facts themselves. Interesting and disturbing at the same time in what it says about this country.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)So let's move on from what is common knowledge and why don't you post something that proves he was lying, a link to an investigation of his superior officers would do, the results of such an investigation, even a denial that he was telling the truth??
I know you will not respond to this request and I know the reason why. I know you will continue to play these childish games. But, it's always instructive to see where people stand on the issues.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)to prove a negative.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)resort once again to not responding.
Talk about laughing.
For the record and for those reading, which doesn't include Treestar who apparently doesn't read my comments, just the handle: 
I love DU!
A recap of the actual discussion in this thread: (psst, Treestar this is for you also)
In response to an assertion that Manning did not choose a legal route to report war crimes, I pointed out that he most definitely did do so.
He took his oath of office seriously and after becoming aware of War Crimes he reported them to his Superior Officers. They ignored him. Leading him to the decision he finally made.
With that out of the way, msanthrope apparently wanted us to believe that 'legal' meant using the Whistle Blowers Protection Act. That did make me, and I'm sure many others, laugh considering how Whistle Blowers are treated in this country.
So I requested an example of how many Whistle Blowers had been protected under that Act over the past few decades basically to point out why no intelligent person, such as Manning, would choose that route.
As expected the only example, and a poor one at that, msanthrope could come up with was from decades ago, she named Ellsberg (who I believe would disagree as he has stated that he was persecuted like Manning). That caused me to rest MY case as it demonstrated why Manning did not take msanthrope's 'advice'.
Treestar apparently not having read the thread, in an ironic ad hom attack, 'accused' ME of having claimed that Manning DID use the Whistle Blowers Act proving without a doubt that he did not read even the comment I directed to him. Since I actually argued as to why he DID NOT use it.
So that is where we are other than the mysterious claim by msanthrope above about some assertion she claims I made, aside from the ones I actually I did make I am assuming, but has refused to tell me what it is.
The games people play when the facts are inconvenient. It is always instructive.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)If you dispute those facts, then say so openly rather than playing these games. I will respond to you when I know what you are talking about.
So far you are making vague references to 'claims' that you have refused to make clear.
There are known facts about this case. Those are the only 'claims' I have made.
Manning reported war crimes to his superiors. They ignored him. That, absent any denial from anyone else, absent any documentation of any investigation into those claims, remains one of the most commonly known facts about this case.
If you have something that disputes that fact, then then please just produce it rather than running around in circles implying you know something no one else knows.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Treestar, Hack89, and I have all asked you the same thing--simply document that claim.
And let Manning's attorneys know.
treestar
(82,383 posts)You keep sidestepping the issue and that's why posters are saying the same thing over and over again.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)a lof of fun watching them do what they always do when they want to avoid discussing facts. It's always the very same two people also which most everyone is aware of.
I am very accustomed to their game, a game played only by those who refuse to acknowledge facts that are inconvenient, and I know it frustrates them terribly when people refuse to play.
Very bad tactic as a majority of those reading know exactly what they are trying to do.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Talking about the posters who posted what, but not addressing the issue. You made a statement, back it up. Attacking posters instead is zero debate points.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)btw, have been avoiding. Why were those who refused to respond to Manning's reports of war crimes not held accountable? Were they even investigated? Have any of the crimes exposed been investigated? Has anyone other than the messengers been held accountable for the crimes revealed?
I see you did not address any of the issues I raised in all of the comments you responded to but went Ad Hom instead which is why I laughed at your 'ad hom' comment.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)Not trying to be an ass, but you nor I know if there is or isn't an active investigation going on.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Ask those who are trying so hard to avoid admitting that Manning did report the war crimes he witnessed to his superiors. The game being played here is to claim there is no proof of what Manning said. They are waiting to play 'gotcha' with that response, which I have refused to allow.
So, skip the game and the 'gotcha' moment which is not going to happen, and YOU ask them that question. I have made no claims that such an investigation happened or did not.
But here is what we do know. Manning in his own words has stated he reported those crimes. I have never seen a denial from the Military that this happened. I HAVE seen excuses as to why his superiors ignored his reports.
So with no public denial or any known investigation from my pov, he was telling the truth.
The next step in the game being played is that he should have sought protection under the Whistle Blower's Act. Lol, and the question from me, post the name of one whistle blower who has received protection under that act over the past number of decades. They could not and that of course answers the question why he chose the Press to reveal those crimes.
Maybe you can explain why a very intelligent man which Manning is, decided he would get nowhere and maybe even prosecuted if he used the Whistle Blower Act. Could it be because our Government DOES NOT protect Whistle Blowers, they prosecute them.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)and all good questions.
Here's what I do know, Pvt. Manning allegedly released classified docs, which is clearly against military law as outlined in the UCMJ, he stands accused of violating the secrecy act he signed and that is a pretty serious offense. Whether or not he felt that's what he had to do is, in the eyes of the law, irrelevant to the law. I sympathize with the young man, but, if he did this, and right now he only stands accused, not convicted, then he knew what was going to happen to him regardless of what was in the doc. he released.
I will defer to those that know more about this case than I do. I'll try to get up to speed on this over the weekend and hopefully get back next week.
In the meantime, you have a wonderful weekend.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts) freshwest
(53,661 posts)In February 1971 Ellsberg discussed the study with New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan, and gave 43 of the volumes to him in March. The Times began publishing excerpts on June 13, 1971; the first article in the series was titled "Vietnam Archive: Pentagon Study Traces Three Decades of Growing US Involvement". The name "Pentagon Papers" for the study arose during the resulting media publicity.[3][5] Street protests, political controversy and lawsuits followed.
To ensure the possibility of public debate about the content of the papers, on June 29, US Senator Mike Gravel (then Democrat, Alaska) entered 4,100 pages of the Papers to the record of his Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds. These portions of the Papers were subsequently published by Beacon Press, the publishing arm of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.[6]
Article I, Section 6 of the United States Constitution provides that "for any Speech or Debate in either House, [a Senator or Representative] shall not be questioned in any other Place", thus the Senator could not be prosecuted for anything said on the Senate floor, and, by extension, for anything entered to the Congressional Record, allowing the Papers to be publicly read without threat of a treason trial and conviction. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the decision Gravel v. United States.
I suppose this is why we can't get at Daryl Issa for his stunts, releasing information. Many arguments do not take these factors into account, nor do they take into account how the majority in the Congress of Senate is essential to bring things to the public, to investigate, to change things.
We had a brief window around the time Obama was elected, with many investigations by John Conyers and others, and those who deny it was brief or what the issues of Democratic Party control of doing things, I no longer cite the proof. They just want to bash Democrats without learning the basics or the numbers. They consider these details beneath them as they talk about great causes, but those details, like the state races, are what makes what happens in D.C. happen. It's boring until it all comes together to do something good or bad. and there is really no surprise what apathy leads to - plutocrats winning.
Ellsberg, Kerry, MLK and the Kennedys shaped my life and those who I knew, mid-sixties thorugh the mid-seventies. Our focus varied from civil rights, voting rights, women's and gay rights, anti-war, to environmental, immigrants and unions. There is never a lack of things to work toward, the work is multi-generational.
I have never forgotten when I saw Mike Gravel's tearful testimony as he entered the words into the Congressional Record to preserve them for the public. Nixon was hot after everyone to get the disclosure stopped, but this was the way to get it done.
You are right. I feel certain Kucinich or Sanders would have done the same as Gravel with this information. It was the reason I supported Gravel in the 2008 primaries. When he did not get the nomination, I checked out Obama and I have no regretted my choice as being the best man for the job.
As Gravel and Ellsberg said, Presidents are not in the same position as they were. When I met with a group of Democrats and listened Kucinich in a Q & A session and people were furious at Obama for the war not ending fast enough, he said the same thing, that Obama's job is not the same as that of a Representative and he supported Obama as a progressive.
In case you never saw the unedited Gravel video, here it is:
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Disclosures were dumped on the web. By people who profited by getting donations for the cause. The noble cause being transparency at any cost, like Issa dumping the names of Libyans for poliitcal purpose.
As much as I was inspired and felt a sense of liberation from Wikileaks, the governments they toppled in some places, were not replaced by democratic ones, but by more authoritarian ones. This has been a source of disllusionment of some of the Arab spring protestors. I feel many of us have been decieved about how to gain power to change these institutions, thinking a few days, weeks in the streets will do it, without electoral victories or hands on work with people.
Certainly, those who call for not voting as making one part of the evil government, can point to individual helping. If they fail to get involved with elections which is what does change government, they have missed the mark. I have friends of different religions who do soup lines and gathering up things for the poor. It is part of their religion, but I urge them to continue to support the tenet of the New Deal which enriched their own lives, by voting and supporting those who do.
I kindly remind my friends, that refusing to vote or get involved politically to change the bigger picture, for those people they will never meet, might never tolerate helping, is passing the buck. It is feel good giving, although often it is hard on the personal level, and for that I thank them. What is harder, though, is to make the government do these things and elminate the problem en masse.
That is the role of the government, but some want it reduced to nothing because they only see the bad that government does, which is exactly the Koch family position in the long run. As if the private sector and business will, take care of it. That is not intellectually honest, since it is not the purpose of a corporation or private interest. As far as philantrophy by the ultra wealthy or others, that is a shiny object dangled in front of people as a magical solution that costs them nothing:
Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary. ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
The anti-government crowd want a libertarian paradise, with only charity and church helping out the poor. So the rich continue to not be taxed, so that it is voluntary and they consider themselves if not of that number now, soon to be. That is the end result of their philosophy. For the success of this model, we can look to those countries of Latin America and Asia and Africa, where the rich don't pay taxes, and the poorest live in prison labor type situation or eke out their living in garbage dumps.
Why not address the cause, by having the government enforce laws on equal opportunity, wages and working conditions, providing housing, food and healthcare to the millions of people they will never meet?
These are the people Democrats vote to support, called weak, compromisers and 'statists' or part of the evil government. It requires a strong government to overcome those who in the private sector who want to discriminate and force others to bow their religious extremism, and/or live at the permission of the rich.
Oh good grief. I think I'm on the wrong thread with this. I'll come back and edit and delete later because I'm on my way out the door in a few minutes.
But I don't see any venality in Manning. I may be wrong.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)After reading his chat logs with Lamo, I do think Manning was an immature, and arrogant person. This does not make him bad, but he does seem to crave adulation. At least that's my take. Perhaps it was only that he felt he needed to belong--and I don't fault him for that.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Sure it wasn't because he was some 20 year old private and not a lawyer? Also what congressman do you suggest he should have gone too. Who do you think has the brass? The leaks have been out in public for five years but I have not seen any debate in congress over prosecuting those war crimes. Because that would be un-American you know.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)In jan of 2010 he was in VA visiting his aunt. He chose to give info to some Boston affiliates of Wikileaks rather than take the Metro. And all servicemembers know what their duty is.
Kucinich was chairperson of a subcommittee under Government Oversight and Reform. Franken's on Judiciary. They have the chops.
treestar
(82,383 posts)He's going to be OK'd for releasing classified information but is just a kid too immature to live with the consequences? He can release classified information as an uninformed kid? Is he kid or adult? If a kid, he should leave Whistleblowing to adults and informed ones at that.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)I never said he was a kid. I said the was 20 year old private. So don't expect him to be a lawyer or particularly erudite. The only reason he had access to what he did was due to his superiors organizational ineptitude and hubris that there would be consequences if those crimes got out. I guess it wasn't so much hubris since 2 years has passed and only Manning has been punished.
And no I don't think anyone in congress would have had the brass to do what was right. We are talking about putting US contractors, State Department personnel and military servicemen on trial for crimes against foreigners. That's un-American you know. Won't get you re-elected.
treestar
(82,383 posts)However, if one is going to undertake something serious like whistle-blowing, which will involve illegal activity, is it too much to talk to a lawyer first?
Then again my question has to be now - why did the military give access like this to a 20-year-old?
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)I am not saying he didn't do anything wrong but keeping him locked up for 2 years is horrific considering the leak did not really endanger anyone. Never mind life.
By the way, if you don't know how pedophiles come into this then I suggest you watch this episode of front line.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/dancingboys/
Some of Manning's leaks exposed that US contractors were involved in the trafficking(and 'use') of these children and that ISAF was aware of this. And yet they chose to do nothing for the past 2 years.
randome
(34,845 posts)Did Manning know about this or was it something that just happened to be in the hundreds of thousands of documents he gave to Wikileaks.
And is this about what Afghanistanis do in their own country? As horrendous as it is, that hardly sounds like whistle-blowing to me.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)I guess I wasn't clear about that in my post but here is some additional reading on it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/foreign-contractors-hired-dancing-boys
^^^The US diplo's response was to try to hush up the story rather than get the DoJ on it. I guess it would have been 'embarrassing for the organization' to pursue it. Kind of like Penn State.
I don't know if Manning specifically read these leaks. He did say that he was disturbed by many things that he had read in the cables. But there were many things in the cables to be disturbed by and this was just one. Maybe it will come up in trial.
The company in Question was Dyncorp and this is not their first brush with sex trafficking. They did it in Bosnia too.
http://www.salon.com/2002/08/06/dyncorp/
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)>>>They include aiding the enemy, punishable by life imprisonment.>>>
Now I know. It was *us*.
The taboo info aided *us*.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I'm not debating the strenghth of that argument--merely noting it.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)I'm getting goosebumps.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)But, in basic conspiracy, the left hand doesn't have to know what the right hand is doing, nor does there have to be direct knowledge or communication with an eventual wrongdoer.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)Disregarding for the moment fact that the case was thrown out... it would have been a moral , ethical , and political mistake of MONUMENTAL proportion if the gov't had proceeded to successfully prosecute Dr. Ellsberg.
Even Nixon's justice dept... notwithstanding its ethically retarded character ... would likely have awakened to that fact in time.
If not, Carter would surely have pardoned him in late Jan. , 1977.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)glacierbay
(2,477 posts)a useful idiot.
hack89
(39,171 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
demhottie
(292 posts)I feel so sorry for him
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)He will go into detail. And the prosecution won't take the deal without testimony before the grand jury.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Clearly, Bradley Manning never deserved the barbaric suffering that was inflicted on him. He did what he did to help us all.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Seriously--I've had clients who think that just because they pled guilty to assault, it doesn't mean they did something wrong.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It was about ending violence. There was no reason to even consider what he did a crime. Secret operations are only going to have right-wing consequences...they can't ever lead to anything progressive or positive anymore.
It's ugly that you're defending the national security state, when that state does nothing but repress you(and the rest of us).
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)That's a fact.
I am sorry you feel repressed.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Why would any non-reactionary EVER take an absolute "the law is the law" position? The law is not neutral and it will never treat the poor, the powerless, and the victims of brutality as equals with the rich, the powerful, and the brutalizers.
We have to retain the right to put conscience first...a law-first world will be a world of savagery.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)the consequences.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)
hack89
(39,171 posts)Assange used him and threw him away like a kleenex. What a waste.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)yes he allegedly was, it doesn't matter one whit what anyone here thinks as far as whether he was right or wrong, what matters is what the UCMJ says, and the UCMJ classifies what he is accused of as a crime.
All the hand wringing isn't going to change that. If this young man is convicted, he's going to spend the rest of his life in a Fed. Supermax prison.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)If the UCMJ can not find real justice then it needs to be reformed by congress. A congress elected by Americans. So yes it does matter what Americans think.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)It's been doing just that since it's inception.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)So no. No it hasn't.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)If so, then the UCMJ doesn't apply, that would be the civilian court system.
You can argue all you want, but the bottom line is that if this young man is convicted of the crimes he's accused of, and my personal opinion is that he will be, then he's going to spend the rest of his life in Fed. prison.
That's the law and all the dithering and hand wringing here on DU don't mean diddly squat. Do you honestly think that anyone in the JAG gives two shits about what's said here?
Yeah, it's nice for all the naysayers to have a place to come to to whine and moan about what they see as a travesty of justice for prosecuting Manning, but in the final analysis, the US govt. could care less about what's said on a chat board.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)If you don't think citizens should talk about what the government does?
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)I never once said that so take your little snark and place it where the sun, well, you get the idea.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)You are the one who is being snarky by not defending your position and hiding behind "it's the LAW"
It's the law because citizens make it the law. If the law is not just or is not being executed justly(I argue the latter) then it should be discussed.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)show one post where I said that this shouldn't be discussed? All I said was that the govt. doesn't care what's said about Manning on DU.
Discuss all you want, I'm not trying to stop anyone.
How am I hiding behind the law when I'm just pointing out the law?
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Yes if he had gone to a congressman first then we would not be having this convo but life in prison for not doing that(or knowing about it) is horrendously excessive. An unjust execution of the law.
randome
(34,845 posts)And I would not have any problem with Obama pardoning him after he's come to terms with violating his military oath.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)but the military is going to make an example of him to discourage others from doing the same thing and I highly doubt that Pres. Obama will pardon him.
Just my opinion of course.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)glacierbay
(2,477 posts)but if you believe that the law is unjust, then I honestly urge you to try to get the Congress to change it.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)..alright.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)Here's my defense of the law, the military is a highly organized entity, discipline and order are the bedrock of the military, Manning knew what the penalties were when he signed the secrecy agreement, yet he released those classified doc. to a foreign entity w/o, IMO, reviewing what he was releasing. He had other avenues he could have utilized but chose not to.
The US govt. cannot tolerate that. What happens if the next time, someone else took it upon themselves to release classified docs because they think it's their solemn duty to do so and it truly damages national security? The govt. cannot allow someone in a trusted position to get away with this.
The bottom line is that Manning unlawfully released classified docs., violating the secrecy oath he took and now, if convicted, he's going to pay a very heavy price for his unlawful action.
And until the law is changed or amended, I support it.
Cha
(297,265 posts)of Pfc Bradley Manning's involvement in releasing classified documents.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Cult of personality aside, he won't be able to walk away from some of the more serious charges.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He was acting morally, to save us all from the reactionary shit the national security state is doing in secret. None of those secret operations are good for the American people...they're all about the old bullshit of defending corporate power globally and keeping us in the Middle East when we have no non-imperialist reasons to be there.
treestar
(82,383 posts)only as people choose it to apply. Exceptions to be made for people we like and who we want to excuse. Who is going to be the Decider in all that? Who gets to evade the law and who doesn't?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)only as people choose it to apply'. So how many of the crimes and the criminals responsible for them revealed by the leaks, has the law been applied to?
Manning was an intelligence analyst, a speed reader, an extremely intelligent person who using his skills, saved the lives of many of his fellow troops.
Since you are commenting here I assume you are aware of the crimes that were committed. Have you advocated for the law to be applied to war criminals, or only to those who report them?
treestar
(82,383 posts)War is hell. I have no idea if there were "war crimes" committed - I actually doubt it. The Hague would start a prosecution if there were any real evidence. I don't agree that in order to oppose the war in Iraq, you have to insist it involved "war crimes." I opposed the war because it was not necessary and was only for motives of enriching the likes of Halliburton. I can do that without having to prove "war crimes."
I think you are using that term loosely, too, without really understanding if there is proof of such things, and if the only way to prove it is to dump classified information without regard to what it includes.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)I actually think you have your head buried in the sand.
Bush and Cheney were formally convicted of war crimes by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal Foundation, a foundation created by those with power to persuade the ICC. Unfortunately it doesn't help when not a single mainstream news agency would cover the story:
http://technorati.com/politics/article/bush-convicted-of-war-crimes/
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)It is they, for whom exceptions are provided. The elites who are protected by our government's secrets, already control every element of state power. They finance our political campaigns, 'sponsor' legislation and establish policy via their 'revolving door'. They also own the banking system, establish our monetary and economic policies and own the media establishment. Clearly, it is they who are the 'deciders'. The People have little recourse, especially when they are ignorant of their government's conduct and methods.
randome
(34,845 posts)Damn. Do they control what kind of car I buy? Where I take my daughters for dinner?
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)ronnie624
(5,764 posts)* Police power, the capacity of a state to regulate behaviours and enforce order within its territory
* The extroverted concept of power in international relations
* The introverted concept of political power within a society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_power
Yes, the elites of our society control every element of state power, including our policies of militarism, and then use the 'law' to hide their crimes.
randome
(34,845 posts)But I don't know who should control state power other than state officials. That doesn't necessarily make them elites and is possibly straying from the OP.
Political power was exercised 3 days ago. If you believe the 'elites' control our society (I do not, at least not to an all-encompassing extent), then we upset their apple cart, didn't we?
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Or the laws that banned labor unions or required people to turn in their friends to the government for their political allegiances? Or the Neutrality Act of the 1930's that was passed solely to make sure that nobody in the U.S. did anything to stop the victory of fascism in Spain?
You can't privilege the law above conscience. Doing so leads to a reactionary, heartless, soulless world. The law is not higher than "the better angels of our nature".
randome
(34,845 posts)Do you really think Manning is an anti-war activist? Funny profession for him to choose, then.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You might just as well attack Daniel Ellsberg's choice of profession.
duhneece
(4,113 posts)No matter what else he did or why he did it, anyone who reveals war crimes is a hero in my book.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)... and is also in MINE.
