View Full Version : Wikileaks: Bradley Manning military hearing bias row
Jimbuna
12-16-11, 05:02 PM
I watched a video of Obama on the evening news in which he clearly states that Manning is guilty of breaking the law, so if Obama as C in C is ultimately in charge of the court trying this guy, how can he receive a fair trial?
A military officer overseeing the hearing of the US Army analyst accused of leaking government secrets has rejected a request to recuse himself.
The request was made by a defence lawyer for Private Bradley Manning, 23, as he appeared at a military court.
He faces 22 charges of obtaining and distributing government secrets - which he allegedly leaked to anti-secrecy site Wikileaks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16211977
Rockstar
12-16-11, 06:23 PM
How do I get a fair trial? I used to ask myself that question everytime I went to captains mast. :salute:
I'm no lawyer but maybe the Manual for Courts Martial would answer your question. http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Pages/MANUAL%20FOR%20COURTS-MARTIAL.aspx#.TuvSbfKwVfM
Catfish
12-16-11, 07:03 PM
One could argue he did, what his conscience told him to do.
I don't know how US citizen's rights are confined in the military, in the US. Anyway everyone criticizing his own governemnt in such a way will certainly be prosecuted, there is no democracy in the military or secret services worth mentioning.
But was he maybe right ?
Did he think his oath bound him to America, and not to unrightful action ?
Did he see something illegal was done, and he wanted the citizens of America and the world to know it ?
Did he think that there was some action done, breaching international and american law, the common people in his democracy were forbidden to hear, hidden away in a a free and democratic America "for the greater good" ?
Killing civilians in collateral damage abroad, with drones ? Invading countries that had nothing to do with terroristic attacks ? Torture violating international law ? Corruption with big business, arms factories and politics ?
It is all there, in those documents.
War crimes, wars of aggression and crimes against humanity are just this internationally, regardless who enforces them. Doing that in Hitler's time would have made him a hero, if most probably posthumously and much later.
If America is free and a democracy he will have to be questioned in a fair trial. If he is not killed before due to some intern code..
Edit: As far as i know he was by far not the only one who informed the press, and wikileaks ? But maybe he is the only one in the military (having onlyconfined civil rights here) , so he can be dealt with internally ? As well this was not an entirely american phenomenon, many people around the world contributed to wikileaks and other organisations about their contries, and governments.
Platapus
12-16-11, 07:15 PM
Is there any reasonable doubt of his guilt? Motivations aside, hasn't he already confessed to downloading the stuff and giving it away?
Takeda Shingen
12-16-11, 08:14 PM
Is there any reasonable doubt of his guilt? Motivations aside, hasn't he already confessed to downloading the stuff and giving it away?
Of course he is guilty, but he is still entitled to due process. Jim raises a valid point about the fairness of trial.
Tribesman
12-16-11, 08:25 PM
Is there any reasonable doubt of his guilt?
But on which charges?
There certainly is a big pile of them of various natures.
Hottentot
12-17-11, 02:09 AM
But on which charges?
Eeny, meeny, miny, moe,
Catch the guilty by the toe
If we can't figure it out we...let him go?
No, no, no, eeny, meeny, miny moe you are it!
I agree that fairness in this situation was always going to be tough. He signed up to NOT share the information he was able to access, and as already pointed out he's admitted that he has done it, so the real question will be how hard they throw the book at him.
I agree that fairness in this situation was always going to be tough. He signed up to NOT share the information he was able to access, and as already pointed out he's admitted that he has done it, so the real question will be how hard they throw the book at him.
I think in many ways though, he's almost not even on trial. What's on trial is the government's ability to sue him effectively and come out looking like they've both enforced the law and weren't the villain of the story. And that will prove a lot more difficult than convicting this fish in a barrel.
In all this, of course, his lawyers will no doubt be looking for any opportunity to get him a softer term and having the government and military come out of this looking worse. Otherwise, we already know that the death penalty is not on the table, and that a lot of charges he's being considered for are going to be a long term by default. So whether or not he's going to be spending a large part of his life in jail is hardly a question anymore.
Catfish
12-17-11, 04:51 AM
And maybe no one would have given a sh!t of how biased some jury would be, if that had happened under the Bush administration .. so is this "bias" against Obama ?
:hmmm:
Jimbuna
12-17-11, 07:13 AM
Sky News were interviewing some senior official in the US an hour ago (sorry but the name escapes me atm) and he reckons twenty years to life to act as a 'dterrent' to any other potential future wrongdoers.
antikristuseke
12-17-11, 07:28 AM
Hasnt it been demonstrated time and time again that punishments such as those do not really work as a deterrent?
That being said, 20 to life does sound about right.
Its only a deterrent to people who wouldn't do it anyway. I think CCIP is right that this is going to be a tricky balancing act for the US Defense department to come off both showing they are tough on this sort of thing but without being the bad guys.
Some already side with them, but there is also a lot of support for the accused and they will of course want to win the hearts and minds of both camps.
Platapus
12-17-11, 09:37 AM
The whole "deterrent" argument is weak as how would anyone be able to prove that someone was deterred? How would that be measured.
I suppose I could call up my local police department and tell them "hey, because of your law enforcement efforts, I was deterred from committing a crime today".
I wonder what their reaction would be. :D
If I did that every day. :D:D
Takeda Shingen
12-17-11, 09:40 AM
The whole "deterrent" argument is weak as how would anyone be able to prove that someone was deterred? How would that be measured.
I suppose I could call up my local police department and tell them "hey, because of your law enforcement efforts, I was deterred from committing a crime today".
I wonder what their reaction would be. :D
If I did that every day. :D:D
:haha:
Oh, the temptation.
If they let queers in the US military, they should not be able to use it as a defense, when they fug up. I hope they shoot this traitor queer bait 48 hours after conviction. :down:
He also posted on a social network, "Bradley Manning doesn't want this war". Then why did you join the US Army, in a time of war, nimrod? Its not like we conscript people.
I think I may join the fire department, but I dont want to put out any fires. Nah, or see any horrible crashes.
If they let queers in the US military, they should not be able to use it as a defense, when they fug up. I hope they shoot this traitor queer bait 48 hours after conviction. :down:
He also posted on a social network, "Bradley Manning doesn't want this war". Then why did you join the US Army, in a time of war, nimrod? Its not like we conscript people.
I think I may join the fire department, but I dont want to put out any fires. Nah, or see any horrible crashes.
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSNEufTg0W49Tx-OYvlh2R4hS-oNqwNEC5vaagPRBMwvJ_9MnhNxG37ABtCGA
Tribesman
12-18-11, 10:47 PM
If they let queers in the US military, they should not be able to use it as a defense, when they fug up. I hope they shoot this traitor queer bait 48 hours after conviction.
Another candidate for the Ted Haggard award.
I can hear Neal warming up the Banhammer now.:ping:
Jimbuna
12-19-11, 12:26 PM
If they let queers in the US military, they should not be able to use it as a defense, when they fug up. I hope they shoot this traitor queer bait 48 hours after conviction. :down:
He also posted on a social network, "Bradley Manning doesn't want this war". Then why did you join the US Army, in a time of war, nimrod? Its not like we conscript people.
I think I may join the fire department, but I dont want to put out any fires. Nah, or see any horrible crashes.
Perhaps you should read the FAQ & Rules regarding Acceptable Language:
No vulgarities, obscenities, hate speech, or foul language.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item_language
You are skating on thin ice with your comments and I should not be reading bad post reports, especially so near to the festive period.
I thank you in advance for your cooperation.
soopaman2
12-19-11, 12:49 PM
I smell a traitor.
No matter his intentions or means he was trusted with a job. And betrayed the confidences of that job. Oh such a hero! *swoon*
Go on, paint him as a freedom fighter, but He is just a military version of Kim Kardashian.
Someone who is seen as a hero, but is really a detriment in the long run.
Hung by the neck until dead, dead, dead!
Ducimus
12-19-11, 02:26 PM
I don't have to have been present, to know that Bradley Manning, said the following, out loud, with his right hand raised, swearing to this oath:
"I, Bradley manning, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
This started his military service. As a military member, he is subject to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. Futhermore, as a member of the United States Military, you do not have the same civil rights afforded to you as a civilian, because while under contract, and under your oath, you are, for all intents and purposes, United States Government PROPERTY. In his case, he is a malfunctioning piece of property.
I believe Article 106a (http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl106a.htm) applies to Manning. Violation of this article, as I understand it, is a capitol offense.
If one cannot quite literally "sign your life away", one should not enlist.
Ya, I'm just as surprised to learn that this scumbag is trying to use DA/DT as a basis for his defense, but I'm sure he'll be well received in prison.
:D
Ya prolly should offer an apology to the high numbers of 'other than hetro's' that frequent this site, they seem to take great offense to somes use of gutter slang.
Well i'm as straight as they come and I also take great offense to his use of gutter slang as well as your implication that one has to be gay for one to take offense.
For the record, Mannings sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with his treason. Gays are just as patriotic as anyone else. Never forget that.
Since his guilt is not an issue in this case Mannings lawyers are desperately casting about for something, anything to possibly mitigate the crime.
But let's not make this an excuse to bash gay people.
Jimbuna
12-19-11, 04:09 PM
Ya, I'm just as surprised to learn that this scumbag is trying to use DA/DT as a basis for his defense, but I'm sure he'll be well received in prison.
:D
Ya prolly should offer an apology to the high numbers of 'other than hetro's' that frequent this site, they seem to take great offense to somes use of gutter slang.
Even simpler....adhere to the rules and expectations of the forum as required by the owner.
Tribesman
12-19-11, 04:36 PM
I believe Article 106a (http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl106a.htm) applies to Manning. Violation of this article, as I understand it, is a capitol offense.
Can you sell Wiki as an entity fitting that ?
Ya prolly should offer an apology to the high numbers of 'other than hetro's' that frequent this site
You sound the same as Zeewolf when he complained that the site was infested with jews.
Apologies for the language. It was inappropriate.
No more posting for me on Sunday after I come home from the game two sheets past Tuesday. :woot:
soopaman2
12-19-11, 06:32 PM
I don't have to have been present, to know that Bradley Manning, said the following, out loud, with his right hand raised, swearing to this oath:
This started his military service. As a military member, he is subject to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. Futhermore, as a member of the United States Military, you do not have the same civil rights afforded to you as a civilian, because while under contract, and under your oath, you are, for all intents and purposes, United States Government PROPERTY. In his case, he is a malfunctioning piece of property.
I believe Article 106a (http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl106a.htm) applies to Manning. Violation of this article, as I understand it, is a capitol offense.
If one cannot quite literally "sign your life away", one should not enlist.
I am glad someone understands, and is not all
"eff the government, mannnnnn!"
An oath is an oath, it is like the promise you make to your wife to be faithful.
Manning disrespected all serving troops with his negative attention. There is a standard to uphold.
Someone please defend this scum and keep your morality as a human being? Or is breaking a sworn oath taken much more lightly in todays military? Not according to my family. I got a Marine cousin who wants 20 seconds alone with Manning.
I want a minute, but I am not trained like my cuz.
Catfish
12-19-11, 06:44 PM
Did anyone notice that the published US action (helicopter shooting) was a violation of international and own domestic law.
What does the US population plan to do about that ?
And this oath clearly states to defend the constitution also against domestic enemies. If a government, the military or one of all those secret services acts this way (as it was not only shown in THIS video), hiding it away from the public and violating its own laws, what do you think the people should do ?
Defend the constitution - right. It is not about right or wrong, my country.
So i take it that the german soldiers and SS was perfectly alright and honourable. They had sworn THEIR oath to someone else.
I watched a video of Obama on the evening news in which he clearly states that Manning is guilty of breaking the law, so if Obama as C in C is ultimately in charge of the court trying this guy, how can he receive a fair trial?
This is an intersting question. The same sort of situation occurred in the criminal trial of Charles Manson: in August, 1974, then President Richard Nixon was asked about Manson and he declared he believed Manson was guilty. A big uproar resulted; the Manson defense team was trying to get the case thrown out due to contamination of the potential jury pool due to Nixon's comments;; members of the congress, on both sides of the aisle condemned the gaffe; the media had a field day and the public was outraged; the president's spokesman, in what I belive was the first use of the phrase "What the President meant to say.." (later to be used quite often by Reagan and both Bush I & Bush II) tried to defuse the situation. The final upshot was the trial judge refused the defense motions. I don't think this will happen here, though: this case is well below the public radar and there is very little interest by the public in the media coverage...
Since his guilt is not an issue in this case Mannings lawyers are desperately casting about for something, anything to possibly mitigate the crime.
But let's not make this an excuse to bash gay people.
Wonder how this will go? If this defense is successfull, will it hurt allowing gays future enlistment in the military?
People against Obama's bill to repeal the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, may try to exploit this case, if it is indeed successful.
Would gays who serve with honor, approve of this defense?
Did anyone notice that the published US action (helicopter shooting) was a violation of international and own domestic law.
What does the US population plan to do about that ?
Do you care to prove your assertion first? As far as I know the helicopter shooting was not a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice or any other applicable law.
Platapus
12-19-11, 07:29 PM
There are two issues that I believe need to be recognized in this case.
1. Manning did not carefully read and select some reports that he truly thought indicated a legal violation and decide to send them to be published. Manning blindly bulk downloaded hundreds of thousands of classified/sensitive documents with no idea, or concern, whether these almost a quarter of a million documents indicated anything legally or morally wrongdoing. Manning even loaded in code to automatically download files with no intervention from Manning. If Manning did not read these documents (and it is taking the military years to read all of them now) the argument that he stole documents that indicate wrongdoing fails. Manning had and still has no idea what those documents contained or whether they indicate any wrongdoing.
2. If Manning truly thought that there was wrongdoing, there are several cleared and appropriate channels he could have lodged his complaint through. The military recognizes conflicts with chains of command. This is why Inspectors General are independent of the local chain of command. Manning could have forwarded his complaint with evidence through his IG.
If Manning did not trust his IG, he could have forwarded it through any other Army IG.
If he distrusted the Army, he could have used a cross service IG.
If he distrusted any of the service IGs, he could have forwarded his complaint through the DoD IG.
If he distrusted the entire DoD IG, he could have forwarded his complaint through his or a cross service ADC office. Hell, he probably could have gone through the Chaplain on this.
If he distrusted the entire DoD establishment, he could have forwarded his complaint to any of the other Executive Branch's IG offices
If he distrusted the entire Executive Branch, he could have forwarded his complaint to a Legislative Branch IG or even to an individual Senator/Congressmember.
If he distrusted the entire Legislative Branch, he could have forwarded it to the Judicial Branch (federal court clerk). He would then have been given a cleared venue to submit his evidence.
OK, the entire federal government is untrustworthy. He could have filed a complaint with his state or any state representative.
The point is there there are many cleared and appropriate venues that Manning should have used. He chose not to use any of them but instead chose to disclose these unread documents to an unauthorized source. There is no indication that Manning attempted to address his concerns through appropriate channels.
There are appropriate channels available both inside and outside Manning's Chain of Command.
He chose not to use any of them. His choice. This is not the actions of a whistleblower. This is the actions of a disgruntled military member who was cultivated by wikileaks just like we cultivate other HUMINT sources.
What his intentions were are only material if other specific charges are levied on him. In no case is the US government obligated to demonstrate actual harm.
It is the act of delivering sensitive documents to an unauthorized person that is the primary crime (Title 18 U.S.C.). No where there or in the NDAs that Manning signed does it say it is OK to give unauthorized access if you feel it is a good idea, or it is OK as long as no one got hurt.
Lets look at SF-312. That is the Non-disclosure Agreement that Manning signed. Depending on his other accesses, he may have signed other NDAs also. It is not uncommon to sign several/many of these.
Here are the juicy parts
I hereby agree that I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless:
(a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it; or
(b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) responsible for the classification of the information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted.
I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, * the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. Unless and until I am released in writing by an authorized representative of the United States Government, I understand that all conditions and obligations imposed upon me by this Agreement apply during the time I am granted access to classified information, and at all times thereafter. Just use The Google and look up SF312 if you want to read the whole document.
Noting in there about Manning agreeing to keep information safe as long as he feels like it.
To me the prosecutors need to focus on this issue and not get distracted on the other charges of aiding the enemy. There is enough evidence to successfully prosecute Manning just for violating this NDA and get Manning in the slam for the rest of his life. It is a simple and straightforward case.
If he ever get's out of jail, there is no statute of limitation for Aiding the Enemy so there is nothing preventing the government from charging him at that time with more crimes.
But let's not pull another Casey Anthony. The Prosecution has a nice tight case. Go for the sure conviction first. There is the rest of Manning's life for working the other charges.
soopaman2
12-19-11, 07:44 PM
Do you care to prove your assertion first? As far as I know the helicopter shooting was not a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice or any other applicable law.
Yes, and if you watched the video they were acting shady, and a few of them were armed.
The hype over this was made because one of them had a camera, and was supposedly a journalist. the rest had ak-47s..
Daniel Pearl was a journalist too, where is his head nowadays?
I see alot of arab sniper videos on live leak, that requires one man with a gun, and another with a camera...
I agree Mr. August. Legal and rightful.:salute:
Tribesman
12-19-11, 08:34 PM
To me the prosecutors need to focus on this issue and not get distracted on the other charges of aiding the enemy. There is enough evidence to successfully prosecute Manning just for violating this NDA and get Manning in the slam for the rest of his life. It is a simple and straightforward case.
Yes, avoid the hype and grandstanding and just do the simple job.
soopaman2
12-19-11, 08:46 PM
Life imprisonment?
What happened to my country, have we all collectively sprouted female genetalia and gotten so sensitive that we don't hang treasonous snakes anymore?
No firing squad, no respectful death for him.
Giving info to a foreign entity.
Pathetic scum.
How can anyone defend him?
Tribesman
12-19-11, 09:02 PM
How can anyone defend him?
How can anyone spout such populist sensationalist nonsense?
Nobody is defending him it's just that Platapus is right. Best to get the life lengthy conviction than try to push for the max and maybe loose it all.
CaptainHaplo
12-19-11, 09:26 PM
How does he get a "Fair" trial?
If you define fair as what is laid down in the civilian law of the land - aka a "trial by a jury of your peers" with evidence rules that are strict and balanced - the answer is:
He doesn't. He willfully, legally via contract temporarily (for the duration of his enlistment) suspended his civilian rights.
However, there is one very important question that must be asked.....
Why was a soldier of such a low rank (at best an E-3) given such unfettered access? Classified information is supposed to be on a NtK (Need to Know) availability. The fact he was accessing stuff without a clearly defined need to know should have raised red flags from day one.
The guy is guilty as sin (note even his defense attorneys do not claim he did not commit the offenses listed), but there is more than just him at fault.
I have no problem letting him do the hangman's dance (rope being cheaper than the rounds a firing squad would use), but this SHOULD have pointed out a severe failure within the intelligence structure to control classified data......
I have no problem letting him do the hangman's dance (rope being cheaper than the rounds a firing squad would use), but this SHOULD have pointed out a severe failure within the intelligence structure to control classified data......
I think it does point it out. It sounds to me like this kid was the most computer savvy member of his unit. He got away with it because his superiors did not understand what he was doing.
BTW from what I understand he wasn't given unfettered access. He just knew how to get around the system.
Platapus
12-19-11, 10:41 PM
Why was a soldier of such a low rank (at best an E-3) given such unfettered access? Classified information is supposed to be on a NtK (Need to Know) availability. The fact he was accessing stuff without a clearly defined need to know should have raised red flags from day one.
Once upon a time, these bad guys flew some airplanes into some buildings....
In the witch-hunt blame-game that ensued, it was discovered that some critical information was not being shared as fast as it should. So, with typical government overreaction, the concept "need to share" was bantered about.
Everyone had to have access to everything all the time. That would solve all our problems. Inundate analysts with a firehose of data. That's the ticket.
So this resulted in E-3's having single access connectivity to many databases. ... to make it easy for analysts to query, retrieve, and download massive amounts of data from a single workstation... all that data in one location. Need to know was presumed and need to share took precedence.
All it needed was an enabled DvD writer and an operator with no morals...
This is the classic paradox with classified information.
1. Keep it compartmentalized and one loser can only steal so much but the good guys also can't get access
2. Keep it un-compartmentalized and the good guys will have an easier time gaining access but one loser can steal 250,000 documents.
Both have risks and benefits. With Manning, we just experienced a big risk of an overreacting "need to share" attitude.
What is needed is a disciplined moderate policy which still establishes need to know but at the same time allows this need to know to be transferred faster than in the past.
We need a system where people who truly have a need to know can get that information faster and easier but at the same time still keep people who don't have a need to know from getting access.
We have been trying to get it right for almost 150 years. It is not an easy problem to solve.
Ducimus
12-20-11, 07:53 AM
Platapus,
What did you do in the Air Force again? I'm guessing at one time you had security clearance greater then Secret. :O:
What is needed is a disciplined moderate policy which still establishes need to know but at the same time allows this need to know to be transferred faster than in the past.
Moderate policy? Disciplined? Ain't seen that in awhile. Erg. Personally, I still believe the system that was in place prior to September 11, 2001 was sufficient. It was lax practices within the system that caused failure. Given the technological adnvances since, we have the means to transfer data quickly and efficiently without opening so many doors and windows, allowing an overall increase of eyes on the material. History has proven that the most stringent of background checks can't keep secrets secret when you expotentially increase the number of people allowed access. But then, since all it takes is one ....
Part of the problem is the ability to store whole file cabinets full of classified documents on a tiny thumb drive.
mookiemookie
12-20-11, 10:23 AM
There are two issues that I believe need to be recognized in this case.
[SNIP]
But let's not pull another Casey Anthony. The Prosecution has a nice tight case. Go for the sure conviction first. There is the rest of Manning's life for working the other charges.
You know, you really changed my mind on this whole issue with that post. Well done, Plat.
frau kaleun
12-20-11, 10:41 AM
What happened to my country, have we all collectively sprouted female genetalia
Well obviously because having "female genetalia" [sic] = being weak, spineless, and too touchy-feely to see that True Manly Justice gets well and properly done.
This must be why only the male of the species can give birth, because them wimminz with all their frail little lady parts are just too fragile and sensitive to endure it. :shifty:
I'm just sayin'.
Jimbuna
12-20-11, 11:07 AM
Apologies for the language. It was inappropriate.
No more posting for me on Sunday after I come home from the game two sheets past Tuesday. :woot:
Rgr that...onward and upward.
Well obviously because having "female genetalia" [sic] = being weak, spineless, and too touchy-feely to see that True Manly Justice gets well and properly done.
This must be why only the male of the species can give birth, because them wimminz with all their frail little lady parts are just too fragile and sensitive to endure it. :shifty:
I'm just sayin'.
There's a great Betty White quote but I can't repeat it here.
Randomizer
12-20-11, 01:39 PM
Manning deserves due process but I cannot help thinking of the classic Summery Trial (Captain's Mast to the Navy types) and the Old Man shouting out from behind his desk "March the guilty b-----d in Sergeant Major" so the thing could get started. Hard to get away with that sort of thing these days.
The defence seems driven by two considerations, the infamous helicopter attack footage and the document classification process. From what little I know about the UCMJ they will have a really uphill fight establishing relevance.
No comments as to the former but even though intelligence agencies routinely over classify material, I cannot see why this should have any bearing on the case whatsoever. The mere fact that the material was classified should make unauthorized distribution a crime. The why was well beyond Manning's pay grade.
Anecdotally, when I worked in Operations, the Intelligence gang across the hall used to drive us to distraction which their obsession for classifying open source material. The unit had a subscription to the English language edition of the Red Star, sort of a Soviet Star's and Stripes or the CF's Sentinel and the Int guys would cull articles from the magazine for inclusion in the unit INTSUM's with the extracts themselves classified as secret. This, even though the Red Star editions were left in the coffee room where they were freely read by anyone in the headquarters building including visitors. I would imagine similar things happen in the US armed forces.
I hope Manning is convicted, legally, quickly and cleanly while receiving the most severe sentence the court can deliver short of the death penalty.
Well obviously because having "female genetalia" [sic] = being weak, spineless, and too touchy-feely to see that True Manly Justice gets well and properly done.
This must be why only the male of the species can give birth, because them wimminz with all their frail little lady parts are just too fragile and sensitive to endure it. :shifty:
I'm just sayin'.
Gawrsh, wimmin sure is touchy an' emotional like...
http://elifesize.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/817%20Popeye.jpg
Catfish
12-20-11, 05:12 PM
Well obviously because having "female genetalia" [sic] = being weak, spineless, and too touchy-feely to see that True Manly Justice gets well and properly done.
This must be why only the male of the species can give birth, because them wimminz with all their frail little lady parts are just too fragile and sensitive to endure it. :shifty:
I'm just sayin'.
Well, you know, he is Soopaman ! Get it ? Get it ?
But, he looks not soo special here (especially from 1:02 on)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxfzm9dfqBw
Platapus
12-20-11, 08:55 PM
Personally, I still believe the system that was in place prior to September 11, 2001 was sufficient.
I agree. There may have been a need for some tweeking but to swing to the other extreme is risky.. as demonstrated.
As for young troops having access, this is a tradition with the military. People in the military frequently are given responsibilities far sooner than many civilian positions. That includes access to highly classified information. Fortunately, 99.99% of the troops are honourable and trustworthy. Unfortunately, due the the nature of the business, that 0.01% can cause a lot of potential problems.
I normally don't buy into the "let's make an example" type of discipline, but in this case, I feel it is appropriate. So much of our security depends on personal integrity. It is impossible to operate in an environment that is completely safe from an insider betraying his country. We must be able to trust our people.
When you have a bad troop like Manning, it is important not not only get rid of him as the threat but to communicate clearly to the other troops that such behaviour can not be tolerated.
There are other Mannings out there and we need to convince them that what Manning did is not the appropriate course of action.
One of the problems with Manning is that he only had his initial investigation. After five years he, and everyone, would have been re-investigated and this 5 year periodic can reveal security problems. As part of the periodic his co-workers are interviewed.
Manning had his initial investigation in 2008 and he started downloading documents in 2009/2010.
This is one of the reasons there have been talk about limiting accesses until a troop has their first periodic, but the ops tempo of the military can't handle that. Troops need to be able to do their job when they get out of school.
The problem is that there is only so much that an initial investigation can reveal and it is worthless in identifying people like Manning who become disgruntled with the military after the investigation.
This is one of the areas where Manning's NCOs and Ops Officers should have stepped in. But we all know about "could have and should haves"
frau kaleun
12-20-11, 10:32 PM
Gawrsh, wimmin sure is touchy an' emotional like...
Lol, nothing "emotional" about it. Occasionally I just get tired of the automatic equating of perceived weakness and inferiority with the possession of mommy parts.
I suspect it may have arisen in the human consciousness partly as compensation for the fact that daddy parts are, in general, far more vulnerable and "weak" than their female counterparts. :O:
External genitals are an enormous cross to bear. :yep:
Jimbuna
12-21-11, 08:52 AM
External genitals are an enormous cross to bear. :yep:
Have you tried using a wheel barrow? :DL
frau kaleun
12-21-11, 09:21 AM
External genitals are an enormous cross to bear. :yep:
Have you tried using a wheel barrow? :DL
:rotfl2:
antikristuseke
12-21-11, 09:43 AM
So that is what Jesus hauled up to Golgatha and was nailed to...
Tribesman
12-21-11, 12:34 PM
So that is what Jesus hauled up to Golgatha and was nailed to...
But didn't simon give him a hand on that job?
Jimbuna
12-21-11, 05:06 PM
:rotfl2:
:smug:
:03:
I don't have to have been present, to know that Bradley Manning, said the following, out loud, with his right hand raised, swearing to this oath:
This started his military service. As a military member, he is subject to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. Futhermore, as a member of the United States Military, you do not have the same civil rights afforded to you as a civilian, because while under contract, and under your oath, you are, for all intents and purposes, United States Government PROPERTY. In his case, he is a malfunctioning piece of property.
I believe Article 106a (http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl106a.htm) applies to Manning. Violation of this article, as I understand it, is a capitol offense.
If one cannot quite literally "sign your life away", one should not enlist.
This.
Platapus
12-22-11, 06:00 PM
External genitals are an enormous cross to bear. :yep:
Looking down at myself.
Sadly, not that enormous. :oops:
Would gays who serve with honor, approve of this defense?
I read this article today and thought of your question. Here's the reaction of at least one of them:
http://www.stripes.com/manning-s-defense-dishonors-gay-gis-1.164136
By Capt. R. Clarke Cooper
Published: December 21, 2011
If he did what he’s accused of doing, Pfc. Bradley Manning is a traitor to the United States of America, and his choice to use “don’t ask, don’t tell” as a defense for treason is a betrayal of all gay and lesbian servicemembers past and present. Whatever his reasons or excuses, Manning does not deserve sympathy from anyone.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.