"Private Manning is rightly facing prosecution"

[ProSense]

PJ Crowley (March 29):

<...>

To be clear, Private Manning is rightly facing prosecution and, if convicted, should spend a long, long time in prison. Having been deeply engaged in the WikiLeaks issue for many months, I know that the 251,000 diplomatic cables included properly classified information directly connected to our national interest. The release placed the lives of activists around the world at risk.

<...>

Wonder what other prisoners waiting behind bars for a trial think about the attempts to portray Manning as a hero to justify his release? Manning deserves no special treatment.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

1. He deserves no special treatment, but ...

he deserves some company in that cell.

Whatever geniuses gave a young army private unlimited access to classified material, without regard for need-to-know, those geniuses should also be held accountable.

[ProSense]

3. "he deserves some company in that cell."

Tell that to the other prisoners at Quantico.

[karynnj]

49. I think the point was that others did not do their job in insurity the security of the material

- and suggesting they should be jailed too.

I don't agree, in that it was more likely incompetence than being an accessory. I do agree that classified information should ever have been available to someone without the need to know. Had the army been doing its job with this, Manning would never have been able to get the information to give away.

[Vattel]

64. So you disagree with Crowley's criticisms of Manning's treatment?

You think that his treatment has been peachy-keen?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

106. From what I read, his treatment has been somewhat harsh

So no, not peachy-keen.

But, does that have any relevance on his guilt or innocence?

Separate issues.

[phleshdef]

21. Well, Manning was DEMOTED to private because he assaulted another soldier.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

46. True, and before that he was reprimanded

for disclosing sensitive material online during training.

It's amazing, and probably criminal, that this guy got such broad access to classified material.

I think there's some blame to be shared with some non-thinking officers.

[NavyDem]

76. If he disclosed sensitive material

he should have had his clearance revoked. That I would blame his company (command) security officer for. During my time in the Navy (I recently retired, and have a background in security clearance matters),I would have recommended to the CO to suspend the access to classified materials for anyone accused or convicted via Article 15(non-judicial punishment) or Article 32.

[ProudDad]

86. Ah, the spin machine and lies and inuendo begin...

Irrelevant even if true...

[msanthrope]

115. What are you going to say when his defense attorney uses this to mitigate his sentence?

From his attorney's blog---


A: The reports of those concerns are true.* PFC Manning's unit documented a steady decline in his mental stability from early on in their deployment starting around December of 2009 to May of 2010. Consistent in this documentation was the behavior that they were concerned about intensified during the deployment. Due to this behavior and a concern about his personal safety, the command made the decision to remove the bolt from PFC Manning's weapon. For several weeks, he apparently walked around Forward Operating Base Hammer with his assigned weapon that was incapable of being used. During this time, however, he was still expected to perform his duties as an intelligence analyst.

http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2010/09/pfc-manning-lawyer-does-not-question.html

Look, it's pretty easy to figure where his defense attorney is going with this--Manning was unstable, and it's the Army's fault for letting him in Iraq. Coombs has tried this before. Of course, that client is now sitting on federal death row, but hey....

[NavyDem]

75. He held a TS/SCI Clearance

Which involves a very vigerous background check (The type that most privacy advocates would have a stroke over). He was granted the clearance because there were no factors that stood out as a threat to security. His job was as an Intelligence analyst, which would have given him access to a lot of material to begin with need to know. He exceeded his access to obtain materials by abusing the access he had.

Someone should be investigated for poor management of the network security controls for certain. If charges came of that, I'd support it.

[paulk]

2. out of context

Crowley's article is a criticism of Manning's treatment.

[ProSense]

4. "Crowley's article is a criticism of Manning's treatment."

Does that change the fact of his statement in the OP?

No, it's irrelevant to the point that Manning is in prison for a reason and that he is charged with a serious crime.

[robinlynne]

30. IF he is convicted is also in that sentence. whihc is the point. We are innocent until proven guilty

Remember?

[paulk]

59. it's misleading to take a sentence or two out of an article

and post it as if it's supposed to be more important than the main gist of the article.

not that that's ever stopped you.

[ProudDad]

87. Yeah, clinton killing a half million children

and Obama continuing to kill more by remote control...

Aren't crimes, eh?

Well, in Imperial bat-shit crazy world, I guess they aren't... :puke:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. Iow, we don't deserve to know about crimes commited in our name.

I don't know if I ascribe to the monicker of "hero" but "patriot" seems to fit pretty well.

[ProSense]

6. Oh bullshit.

This is pretty much the meme to label Manning a "hero" or "patriot" for doing something stupid.

[stevenleser]

7. A patriot or hero would have gone to the Army Inspector General or Senate oversight committee nt

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. Where things go to die.

The naiveté is astounding.

[phleshdef]

11. Lame fucking excuse. Manning was reckless with lives and ignored the legal path.

The little SHIT is lucky that Wikileaks scrubs, or else he could have gotten someone killed. He didn't follow military whistleblower procedure and therefore fucked himself and deserves everything that is coming to him.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

20. Of course he fucked himself.

So that we could know what the government is doing in our name.

The facts of which don't seem to get you outraged. I wonder why? :freak:

[phleshdef]

23. Oh my! Its Jesus Manning! "For Bradley so loved the world....".

Give me a fucking break.

There is no excuse for him ignoring the legal path that was there for him to leak any evidence of corruption. Not one damn excuse. None. He deserves what he gets.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

31. Your words not mine.

Give me a fucking break.

No excuse? None?

Of course the system has no vested interest in protecting itself. Investigations always proceed with unwavering rectitude and the bad guys always get punished. Fuck whistleblowers! I can't handle the truth!

[stevenleser]

54. It's actually funny that you and others DON'T see how you deify him.

I mean, you and other folks have called Obama supporters (including me) Kool-Aide drinkers, etc. I can name four specific policy decisions of Obama's that I disagree with.

Can you name anything about what Manning did here in leaking the information to wikileaks that you disagree with and find fault with? Anything?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

57. Here go the goalposts! Hang on everyone!!!

I mean, you and other folks have called Obama supporters (including me) Kool-Aide drinkers, etc.

Show me a post of calling you a Kool-Aide drinker. I'm not responsible for "other folks." The straw is thick.

Can you name anything about what Manning did here in leaking the information to wikileaks that you disagree with and find fault with? Anything?

For starters, I have yet to see an acquittal or a conviction. More straw.
Secondly, moving with the goalposts, moving with a fantasy conviction and pre-supposing guilt...Yes, the law* was broken. We need a hay barn, folks!

I've answered your questions, now you answer mine.

Do you have any regard to the actual information that was released?
Was it important?
*Should it have been classified in the first place? Should it have been a breakable law?
If it was important, what are your thoughts on the governing bodies that tried to hide it?

[NavyDem]

80. He could have contacted Dennis Kucinich

Under the whistleblower protections. Are you saying that someone like Kucinich would not investigate the possibility of a war crime? If so, why would he investigate the treatement of a person that has released information about war crimes (As the Manning supporters like to remind us all)?

[ProudDad]

89. And NOTHING would have been changed..

The Empire would continue to lie and lie and lie...

[msanthrope]

114. Why? Dennis had subpeona power on Oversight and Government Reform.

If he had leaked to him, Dennis had the power to start an investigation.

I am certain DK would have taken a break from his olive pit litigation.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

116. No participation?

I answer your questions, you don't answer mine?
I wonder why? :freak:

[grahamhgreen]

43. Whistleblowing on a pattern and practice of heinous crimes going back decades is not a crime.

[Azathoth]

50. That doesn't make any sense

You can't blow the whistle on something you don't know about. Gossiping about Gaddafi's nurse isn't a crime. And we haven't been in Iraq for "decades".

[grahamhgreen]

51. Elements of the government have been taken over by a criminal cabal the Eisenhower called the

"military industrial complex".

The have been fostering illegal wars and other activities for decades.

The entire body of the wikileaks provides evidence in support of criminal activity that has to be looked at as acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.

[stevenleser]

12. I'm former active duty who was involved in an IG situation and saw it work. What is your experience?

nt

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

18. Did it involve war crimes? nt

[stevenleser]

19. I cannot comment, but I can say that it didn't involve moving the goalposts n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

27. Lol.

Ooh! RiF avoided admitting RiF has no experience with an IG case!

Now the goalposts are back in place. Happy? What was your point, anyway? That the government always pursues justice in internal investigations and we should trust them without skepticism? There are so many cases of investigatory malfeasance that I don't need firsthand knowledge of the process.

Of course, you know zippo about all the cases that didn't work. Ironically, we'd need another whistleblower for that. :think:

[stevenleser]

53. I need an interpreter for your post.

>>Ooh! RiF avoided admitting RiF has no experience with an IG case!

I have no idea who your friend RiF is so I cannot help you with what they know or do not know.

>>Now the goalposts are back in place. Happy? What was your point, anyway? That the government always pursues justice in internal investigations and we should trust them without skepticism? There are so many cases of investigatory malfeasance that I don't need firsthand knowledge of the process.

Nope, you have still moved the goalposts. First you said that internal investigations dont work, then you moved the goalposts asking me if the investigation with which I was familiar had to do with war crimes. Are you saying you are taking that silly question back?

>>Of course, you know zippo about all the cases that didn't work. Ironically, we'd need another whistleblower for that.

"All the cases" So that is the standard? So you know "All the cases" do you? If not, why are you challenging MY knowledge of "All the cases"

Tell you what, you find someone who knows about "All the cases" and get back to me.

Until then, the IG and other internal investigative processes work, and you have no evidence to the contrary.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

60. You need someone brighter. That's for sure.

RummyisFrosted. There's your "RiF." Sorry you couldn't figure it out. :(

Nope, you have still moved the goalposts. First you said that internal investigations dont work, then you moved the goalposts asking me if the investigation with which I was familiar had to do with war crimes. Are you saying you are taking that silly question back?

I didn't say internal investigations don't work. I said they don't all work. The goalposts weren't moved regarding war crimes. You just might not be intellectually honest enough to recognize that the leaks we're talking about involve war crimes. Making them the original goalposts of our conversation.

Now who feels silly?

"All the cases" So that is the standard? So you know "All the cases" do you? If not, why are you challenging MY knowledge of "All the cases"

Tell you what, you find someone who knows about "All the cases" and get back to me.

Until then, the IG and other internal investigative processes work, and you have no evidence to the contrary.

Just "Wow!"

Someones who know all the cases: DoD. CIA. FBI. And asundry others.

No evidence to the contrary? Abu Ghraib. Plame. Infinity...

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

45. would you be cool with the leaks if Manning had given them to Iran?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

55. He did*.

They were released in open media.

I never said I was "cool" or otherwise. I never said I wasn't "cool" or otherwise.

I said it was patriotic. I said he'll pay the price.



eta: *If done as accused. Allegedly.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

117. crickets

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

118. Even more crickets.

[NavyDem]

77. In accordance with this

Title 10, U.S.C Section 1034

The act protects a military service member who makes a "protected communication" regarding a violation of law or regulation. The superiors of these service members are prohibited from retaliating against the service member making the protected statements.<2> The Congressional statute is implemented by Department of Defense Directive 7050.06 (July 23, 2007), which protects:
(1) Any lawful communication to a member of Congress or an Inspector General. <3>


(2) A communication which the Armed Forces’ member reasonably believes evidences a violation of law or regulation, including sexual harassment or unlawful discrimination, mismanagement, a gross waste of funds or other resources, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.<4>

But the communications must be made to one of the following:



(1) A member of Congress, an Inspector General, or a member of a Department of Defense audit, inspection, investigation, or law enforcement organization, or


(2) Any other person or organization (including any person or organization in the chain of command) designated under Component regulations or other established administrative procedures to receive such complaints.


Which Manning apparently did not do.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. You conveniently skipped over the revelation of crimes in order to spout "Bullshit."

I wonder why? :freak:

[ProSense]

13. "Revelation of crimes"?

The crime is releasing the classified information.

You overlook that to declare Manning a "patriot."

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

17. Which is vastly preferable to killing journalists and then covering it up.

You overlook that to relieve our government of culpability.

Most things aren't classified for national security, they're classified to cover someone's ass.

[sudopod]

33. What do you call torturing innocent Afghans because they like Casio watches

and shooting vans full of children with an Apache helicopter?

An oopsie?

[ProSense]

82. What the hell does that have to do with

Manning's crime?

Atrocities were committed so Manning is a hero?

Ridiculous!

Manning illegally release a lot of classified documents. He's not a whistleblower.

Who did he blow the whistle on, and via what channels?

What's the new standard: anyone who leaks classified information is a hero?

Ludicrous!

[sudopod]

93. Those attrocities? He blew the whistle on them.

You wouldn't have known about them but for Manning.

[ProSense]

95. Who did he blow the whistle on?

Manning had no specific intent to expose anyone. He simply released classified information.

This is an argument searching for a straw to grasp.

[sudopod]

99. Uh...the massive cover up.

IIRC, the helicopter vid is one of the things that Lamo claimed pushed Manning over the edge.

I can see why. Here's the video and some information regarding it. I find it highly telling about the efficacy of the Inspector General
that the pilots have not been charged. Where is your outrage for the dead?

http://www.collateralmurder.com/

Update: On July 6, 2010, Private Bradley Manning, a 22 year old intelligence analyst with the United States Army in Baghdad, was charged with disclosing this video (after allegedly speaking to an unfaithful journalist). The whistleblower behind the Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg, has called Mr. Manning a 'hero'. He is currently imprisoned in Kuwait. The Apache crew and those behind the cover up depicted in the video have yet to be charged. To assist Private Manning, please see bradleymanning.org.

5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.

Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-sight, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.

[ProSense]

103. Who did he blow the whistle on?

There are all sorts of unsubstantiated claims flying around.

These aren't the Pentagon Papers.

[sudopod]

104. The pilots and their superiors who covered up the massacre, for starters.

From the site:

"The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured."

I guess you can trust the military to police itself, but that seems awfully naive.

I guess you can ignore comparisons with the Pentagon Papers, but Ellsberg disagrees with you.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

62. C'mon, PS.

Answer the question.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

107. I don't agree with you.

What's your problem?

Manning is not Ellsburg no matter who tries to romanticize his leaking classified information.

Manning is going to be tried whether you like it or not. It's that simple.

[jeff47]

44. So far, nothing allegedly leaked by Manning has lead to revealing new significant events

There's some more detail, but the events were already reported by the media. The rest has been useless things like we found out Castro's favorite cigar brand. Ooooh, there's something that desperately needed to be leaked.

(And before someone asks "then why were they secret?", those details were the thing that was secret).

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

61. An helicopter attack on journalists. A war crime.

And the ensuing cover-up. Another crime.

Where were they "already reported" in American media?

[jeff47]

69. Is your google broken?

If you're speaking of "Collateral Murder", that was reported about 2 years before the leak. The army's year-long investigation was already complete and much of their report had been released.

What was new was there was now video. But all the information was already out. I'm sorry you didn't get excited until there was video.

(Btw, wasn't a war crime, as the journalists were not intentionally targeted. Tossing around "war crime" for every bad event just cheapens the real war crimes.)

[sudopod]

101. They weren't targeted because they were journalists.

They were targeted because "why not?"

[jeff47]

108. Which is perfectly legal

I'm surprised at the number of "anti-war" people who forget the entire reason to be anti-war. It's not about cute kids or journalists. It's the number of horrific things that are acceptable in war.

[sudopod]

111. Being in a war does not forgive cold-blooded murder

Being in an illegal ware does not excuse hiding it.

What kind of man says what you just said with a straight face?

Did you watch them lie to get permission to murder?

Did you watch them laugh?

Fuck you and fuck your legality. There is no place where our law holds where that is legal. There is no place on earth where that is right.

God, I hate humanity some days.

[sudopod]

112. God damn it everyone, is this what we've come to?

[sudopod]

102. From the collateral murder site:

"The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured."

Maybe it was some of those self-firing guns they joke about in the gungeon.

[jeff47]

109. Yet the NYT somehow managed to reveal that.

There's more than one source of information, you know.

[sudopod]

110. And the military's investigation didn't, which is kind of the point of the whole exercise, no? nt

[Bluenorthwest]

10. But apparently Cheney Rummy, W, and all deserve special

treatment. I mean, without them, there would be no leaks to wiki. But for them, we must look forward, not back, we have to turn that page.
Sick and hypocritical. Selective prosecutions are a mark of corruption.

[ProSense]

15. Nonsense!

One criminal going free doesn't mean all criminals should go free.

Bush and Cheney have already been declared guilty, no trial needed.

One could say they were caught in the act. In fact, they confessed.

[CrossChris]

24. And Bush and Cheney have suffered the same punishment as Manning?

Somehow it doesn't give me any small comfort that we know they're guilty. We don't even know that about Manning without a trial--unless we want to do away with "innocent until proven guilty."

[Bluenorthwest]

25. How absurd. No tiral needed? Since when?

They walk free. They are legally innocent of all wrongdoing. Selective enforcement of the law is a marker of corruption.
Reductive and nonsensical. You shout for the punishment of lesser crimes while promoting the idea that great crimes should go without so much as a trial. Interesting point of view. Go for the small fish, make a big show, call that justice and look forward, not back.
No legal authority has declared them guilty, that is false, 100% false.

[phleshdef]

28. You really shouldn't need sarcasm tags to get sarcasm when its obvious.

[phleshdef]

16. So, are you saying you do or don't think Manning should be prosecuted.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. So, did I say that?

I say what I mean. Selective prosecution is not justice, it is a marker of corruption. Read what I wrote.

[phleshdef]

36. It was a simple yes or no question.

And a simple yes or no will be sufficient. I didn't say you "said that". If you had, I wouldn't be asking.

[Azathoth]

22. Oh Jesus. We didn't send Bush to the Hague so we have no right to protect classified information

Amazing.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. Tell that to Valarie Plame.

Selective enforcement of law is a marker of corruption.

[Azathoth]

38. Then by your definition, the USA has been corrupt since its inception

since no sitting or former President has ever been prosecuted (despite the fact that Chomsky has accused most of them of war crimes), and any attempt to enforce the law is just hypocrisy.

[phleshdef]

39. Human involvement period, is a marker of corruption.

[sudopod]

40. Hopeless and cynical is no way to live life

I do think that attitude is why there is so little give a damn anymore about unnecessary wars, torture, environmental destruction, the homeless, etc. People are just pulling the cover over their heads and hoping it will go away.

[Mimosa]

68. Sad but true, Sudopod.

Maybe it's because we've learned we are powerless against changing the direction the MICC (original Eisenhower wording he was persuaded not to use was 'Military Industrial Congressional Complex') wants to take us.

[NorthCarolina]

67. You are of course correct in pointing out the double standard, however there are some folks

here who would defend Obama's actions regardless of what he said or did. Obama stepped in shit with the Manning comment of guilt, and damn-it all, they will back him up by proclaiming Mannings guilt from the highest mountain. Sad really. I for one am very glad to know that there are folks out there such as yourself that can still rationalize truth and fairness, and have not sunk to the bottom of the feeding tank.

[Tarheel_Dem]

26. Thank You.

:applause:

[krabigirl]

29. What website am I on?

[lamp_shade]

35. But... but... he's such a cute little chubby pink-faced cherub.

:puke:
He broke the effing law.

[sudopod]

37. whatever helps you sleep at night. nt

[NorthCarolina]

73. +1000

[grahamhgreen]

41. Whistleblowing on a pattern and practice of heinous crimes going back decades is not a crime.

If he deserves no special treatment, he should be out on bail, like Bernie Madoff was.

[Autumn]

42. Too bad Rove, Cheney. Libby and Obamas

friends from AIG and Goldman Saks aren't in a jail cell with Manning instead of receiving special treatment. All are not created equal and I guess that just shows it pays to have friends in high places, then you can just fucking look forward.

[Cali_Democrat]

47. What about the special treatment for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the financial elites?

Why aren't they facing justice for their deeds? Are they not getting special treatment?

[NorthCarolina]

74. Because they ARE a part of the corruption. Condemnation is reserved only for those that

attempt to expose that corruption....apparently.

[sudopod]

94. You should always punish crime

unless you need to look forward. Or something. :/

[karynnj]

48. He does deserve a speedy trial

One question I have is whether it is the government that is causing this to take so long. I do understand why they need to hold him in custody, but question why the solitary confinement and other unusual actions. One question I have is whether his having been active in the military at the time of the alleged (though I think he admits it) crime makes a difference in this.

I have not followed it closely lately, but is there a trial date set yet?

[RandomThoughts]

52. They are trying to make an example out of him.

They don't need to treat him wrong, nor is it justified.

But outside of justice, it is used to try to deter people from doing the same thing.

If he was treated well, they would say he was not, or make sure he is not.


:shrug:

You think as if we have a legal system in place, we have worse then anarchy, it is not about laws or what is right, it is about things like making people intimidated, by showing unjust treatment of others.

That is roves better to be feared ideas.

It is pretty plain to see.

The main goal of tyranny is to make a person feel powerless, and ineffectual. Shrug, might as well just continue on weather it be turning back time, or being backed by years.


Not like they have any effect. They show there ineffectualness when they have to wrongly treat someone. If they have to go outside law and order, justice and compassion, it shows that is not the position they stand for.


Time - Pink Floyd + Lyrics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYiahoYfPGk

[stevenleser]

56. I certainly hope they make an example of him.

I would disagree if he had at least tried to use a number of the avenues open to him to complain about some of the things he found.

I would have more sympathy if he released 10 or fewer items that all involved whistleblowing. Several hundred random diplomatic cables? Not so much

[RandomThoughts]

71. Need more actually.

Has the banking problems been cleaned up? Has Gitmo been closed? Has there been compensation? Has there been trials in open where those that committed war crimes can be prosecuted in a fair trial.

You could make the argument if 10 or so cables corrected the issues, but since they have not, more actually need to be released.

And it should be global, since the problem is not the USA alone, there are huge problems in other dictatorships around the world.

[ProudDad]

85. "at least tried to use a number of the avenues open to him"

he did...

[Bodhi BloodWave]

63. Actually the delay is based on something manning's lawyer requested, not the government

3 different sources mentioning the defense requesting it, and a fourth mentioning it coming to an end(thanks to tammywammy for source 3 and 4)

First:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/2/wikileak... /
The Military District of Washington said trial proceedings had been delayed since last July “at the request of Manning’s defense attorneys — pending the results of a defense-requested inquiry into Manning’s mental capacity and responsibility.”

Pfc. Manning’s attorney told the Associated Press that the charges he will eventually face at any trial will be determined by the result of an Article 32 hearing — the military equivalent of a grand jury — which will not convene until after the mental health inquiry is complete.

The statement did not give any date for this.

Second:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/03/3153767.h...
A trial date has yet to be set and the army says proceedings have been delayed since July 12, 2010, pending the outcome of an inquiry into the soldier's "mental capacity" requested by defence lawyers.

Third:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/01/04/Army-board-to-evaluate-Wikileaks-suspect/UPI-62651294148638
A soldier suspected of providing classified documents to the Web site WikiLeaks will be evaluated by a mental health panel, a U.S. Army spokesman said.

The spokesman, Lt. Col. Robert Manning, said the Army is assembling a special "706 board" to decide whether Pfc. Bradley Manning is fit to stand trial, The Washington Times reported Tuesday.
*snip*
Lt. Col. Manning said once the board determines the soldier's fitness, the Army can move forward with the Uniform Code of Military Justice process.
*snip*
The defense requested the fitness evaluation.

fourth:
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/04/20/2815672/accused-wikileaks-informant-moved.html#ixzz1KObCtG7S
Johnson said the move instead comes because Manning’s mental competency inquiry review is complete and “Private Manning’s presence in the Washington, D.C., area is no longer necessary for that purpose.”

The medical opinion of the mental health review, known in military justice terms as a 706 board, will take more time, Johnson added. But the military has decided the new Fort Leavenworth facility is better suited to house Manning.

Quantico typically holds pretrial inmates about two months, Johnson said.

“Army Corrections Command has reviewed the new facility and determined that it has the expertise and capability to provide continued long-term pretrial confinement for Private Manning,” Johnson said.

[RandomThoughts]

70. Or they moving forward now, becuase of latest Gitmo info drop

:shrug:

[Bodhi BloodWave]

72. well, if it thinking that makes you sleep better *shrugs* n/t

[msanthrope]

113. His defense delayed proceedings by requesting a 706 in January.

It will be interesting to see if the defense posts the results of the testing.

[DevonRex]

58. Manning is a fucking disgrace and a fucking traitor. Nt

[NorthCarolina]

66. To you maybe. nt

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NorthCarolina]

65. Corrupt government officials, wall street crooks, and torturers walk free,

but woe be the whistleblower citizen that dare expose that corruption for he will suffer the full extent of outrage.

[Kdillard]

78. I don't know how anyone can be on his side. The book should be thrown at him.

[ProudDad]

81. Why?

He just, ALLEGEDLY exposed the lies of the Empire and its minions...

[ProudDad]

79. If he did what he's accused of doing, he IS a hero -- that's the difference...

The rest are accused criminals in the Actual sense of the word...

Of course, in the Empire, accused thieves, rapists and murderers are given much better treatment than "traitors" to the Empire that's fucking up the Earth...

FAIL!!! :eyes:

[ProSense]

83. Bullshit! n/t

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sudopod]

96. This makes me sad. :( nt

[ProudDad]

98. ChickenSHIT!!! (n/t)

[ProudDad]

90. Free Bradley Manning

http://www.truth-out.org/free-bradley-manning/1303830295

[OwnedByFerrets]

And yet, a war criminal, GW Bush, is walking around with impunity

and with NO chance of ever serving a day of time for his crimes against humanity.

[OwnedByFerrets]

92. dupe

dupe

[ProudDad]

97. Free Bradley Manning

And here is Bradley Manning, who like every enlisted American soldier, swore an oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against enemies both foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. That same oath requires the oath-taker to follow the orders of the president and superior officers, but if those hanged men at Nuremberg prove anything, it is that unlawful orders are by definition void, and should not be followed if the oath sworn to the Constitution is to mean anything at all.

Make no mistake: the documents Bradley Manning has been accused of leaking are prima facie evidence of illegal orders being given and executed all along the chain of command.

http://www.truth-out.org/free-bradley-manning/1303830295

[ProudDad]

100. Free Bradley Manning

Also illuminated in these leaked documents is the shameful use of torture, described through the cruel euphemism of "enhanced interrogation," that was rampant at Guantanamo Bay. Thanks to such disgraceful practices, the prisoners currently detained there now find themselves in a ridiculous legal limbo; they may be innocent or guilty, but because they were tortured, they cannot be brought to trial because evidence obtained against them was gathered illegally. The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before, refuses to let the legal process do its work, nor are they willing to release these prisoners, so there they sit.

In a filthy irony, Bradley Manning was exposed to a number of grotesquely similar "stress tactics" used against Guantanamo prisoners while detained at Quantico. He was deprived of sleep, humiliated and berated by his captors, isolated, exposed to cold, and made to stand naked for extended periods of time. Such acts are straight out of the War on Terror handbook, and like the prisoners at Guantanamo, were used against a man who has yet to be convicted of anything. The mistreatment tactics against prisoners that Manning allegedly exposed have been used against him, one more crime in a symphony of crimes.

http://www.truth-out.org/free-bradley-manning/1303830295

[ZombieHorde]

105. No one deserves anything. People just do shit to each other.

Sometimes that shit is pleasant, sometimes that shit is unpleasant.