Manning found not guilty of "aiding the enemy"

[Platapus]

The military judge found Manning not guilty of the one charge of "Aiding the Enemy".

I think this was the right decision. I never felt like this case justified that specific charge. I would want to see more specific evidence of direct intent to aid the enemy. This was not present i the Manning case.

Of course it is kinda a pointed moot, as Manning already plead guilty to enough charges to warrant over 100 years in prison. So I don't think we will be seeing Mr. Manning for a while.

I hope this will shut up some of the people in the Internets Tubes who were proclaiming that Manning could not get a fair trial in the military and that military courts just rubber stamp the charges. :nope:

I think the military justice system works pretty well, not perfect. If I were charged with a crime I did not commit, I would feel much more comfortable being tried in a military court than a civilian court.

[Tchocky]

Seems like the evidence wouldn't stretch to it, strange that the charge was ever placed.

Feel sorry for the guy.

[CaptainHaplo]

Glad to see they judged it on the merits. Wikileaks isn't "the enemy". It may be an enemy to our government, but not in the way that charge is intended.

[Skybird]

Seems like the evidence wouldn't stretch to it, strange that the charge was ever placed.

Feel sorry for the guy.
Not strange at all. The goivernment wants to intimidfate and deter any future whistleblower, and while Bush remembered that policy and implemented new legislation to destroy legal protections for insider sources of journalists after 9/11, and while Obama picked up this legacy and pushed it to new heights, both are not the original inventors of this state behavior, but source protection was denied to investigative journalists already during the Vietnam war.

IOne has to understand this - no government, democratic or non-democratic, wants a truly free and independent press, but propaganda platforms. No government wants whistleblowing, and investigative journalists. All governments hate all this like the plague. A fully informed citizen is a threat to the government, no matter its nature.

After 9/11 the US government just became especially shameless - and creative - in cracking down on all these annoyances. Ask the wrong question at the wrong time, and you have been given your lkast invitatrion to the WH press conference - practice under Bush. Given more teeth and claw under Obama.

It is ironic, really, how far Obama exceeds Bush in some really bad things. I never excpecte dmuch of Obama, and did never believe in the hype that was esopecially stronmg in Germany. But that it would be like this, I did not forsee. Intimidating the press, destroying source protection, intensifying drone warfare - Obama is Bush squared in these fields.

On Manning, I think he wa naive, and now must serve as the pawn to be sacrificed. I would like to see his superior officers being in his place. My impression of Manning is such that I would never have given him a higher security clearance. His superiors failed their responsibilities, I suspect.

[Stealhead]

I think the military justice system works pretty well, not perfect. If I were charged with a crime I did not commit, I would feel much more comfortable being tried in a military court than a civilian court.


I agree with that on my limited experience it seemed much better than the civilian system.

Under the UCMJ they have a different name for Mirinda but I know that they do it before they even question you much less arrest you.Spooked me once because I got questioned once it scared me at first because I come in to report to this captain at my squadron.

She is sitting there and there is a guy in civilian clothes (OSI) and first thing she starts saying what sounds like the Mirianda rights.So I say very very nervously "what did I supposedly do?" The OSI guy laughs and apologizes an explains how the UCMJ works in this situation they just wanted to ask me questions about something I guess they thought I was involved in I had no idea what they where asking me about ans said so that was the end of it never did find out who they where after most likely something to do with drugs.Of course the pint was to make it plainly clear that you have the right not to incriminate yourself which makes sense to do it that way lest an officer force a confession via authority.

Never took part in a courts martial but I knew people that had been they said it was much better than civilian court.

Also a little known secret if given an article 15(summary courts marshal) and you know you are not guilty request a special courts marshal(equal to misdemeanor level crimes) the JAGs almost never touch a weak Article 15 of course if you got busted for DUI or something that is easy to stick bad idea because they will get you then and then you'll get CC.

Manning went though a General Courts marshal which are for serious crimes.

[August]

I think they let him off easy.

They may not have proved he actually aided the enemy, or at least they decided that it would serve no purpose to detail in court the assets that he had endangered since they still have enough on him to put him away for life, but the sheer volume of the information he stole says to me that Manning didn't read but a small portion of it. It could easily have contained information that was useful to the enemy and he just didn't care.

[TarJak]

But recklessness is not intent which is most likely why the verdict fell the way it did.

[Spiced_Rum]

Amazed that he could get away with so much data unchecked.

It was why the KGB went around in three man teams; one could read, one could write, and the other guarded the two dangerous intellectuals. :haha:

[August]

But recklessness is not intent which is most likely why the verdict fell the way it did.

Quite possibly but I think it mainly was because the government didn't want to give AQ further intel by detailing what assets were compromised in open court, let alone surmount the difficulties in bringing them to the US to be cross examined by defense attorneys.

As it is he's still facing 136 years. I'll be happy with 70-80.

[Jimbuna]

Well if he is never going to be released I suppose the sentence is as was intended.

[Catfish]

Over a hundred years imprisonment.
Which court judges the deeds of the secret services ?

Way to go America.
As long as some bigot a.. holes can shut up people like this, we will have wars.

[Platapus]

Under the UCMJ they have a different name for Mirinda but I know that they do it before they even question you much less arrest you.

It is called an Article 31 waiver. When I was doing security interviews, I carried one of those cards with Miranda on one side and Art 31 on the other.

[Platapus]

Amazed that he could get away with so much data unchecked.


After the 911 attacks, It was determined that some information was not being shared. Typical of the government, an overreaction ensued and everyone was told to forgo "need to know" and embrace "need to share", despite the fact that "need to know" was still the law.

So databases were unlocked and linked. There was limited (or even in some cases no) audit trails or authentication other than signing on to the system.

Well, as we always say, the easier you make it for the good guys to get access to information, the easier it is for the bad guys to get access.

Because of this, Manning, from his computer in the field was able to access DoS database despite there being no reason what so ever for anyone in his position to have access to anything like that.

All Manning had to do (and did) was simply FTP entire directories and burn them to disk. Why his drives were active is another question. Normally external storage drive/ports are blocked.....so that you can't download and burn.

This is why the "whistleblower" theory does not apply. Manning downloaded entire directories. He had no time to read even a tiny fraction of the 700,000+ documents that he chose to illegally distribute.

This is not the behavior of a legitimate whistleblower. :nope:

As August posted, he simply did not care. All he wanted to do is get back at the military for a perceived wrong that happened to Manning.

It is this "didn't care" attitude which leads me to believe that the Aiding the Enemy charge did not apply. There are and were, many other charges more appropriate to the case.

Hopefully, this case will spur some security changes, where NTK will be enforced and auditing of downloads will be recorded and checked.

[Stealhead]

It is called an Article 31 waiver. When I was doing security interviews, I carried one of those cards with Miranda on one side and Art 31 on the other.


Yes that is what I was thinking of I think it is a slight bit different in wording as well seeing as they use it when they hand people Article 15s if I recall.

My little misadventure happened after I had been in for about two years and I never got in any serious trouble it was all just questioning about some other airmen in the dorms whom I did not associate with.You'd think they might tell you these things before they scare the crap out of you.

They must do lots of Article 31 waivers because they like to hand out those Article 15s like candy they acted like they where career killers what they do not tell you is that many folks have them.I know a guy that made E-9 and he had one I know another dude that was on the quality assurance team with SAC and he had one that was back in the early 60's when SAC was insanely strict.I almost got one when after a rather pompous SNCO told me to come sit and talk and I said I can talk right here I was busy working on something I did not even know who I was talking to luckily the squadron commander read it and then talked to me off the record after that he tossed it.I think some officers like to use them as "inspiration".

The trick is to avoid doing things that earn you a dishonorable discharge and a vacation in Kansas.

[Platapus]

The wording is slightly different between the two but essentially the same.

If you want to be cooleo from a trivia viewpoint, in the military we have Tempia rights, where civilians have Miranda rights.

United States v. Tempia (1967) was the court case that established that military personnel must be read their Article 31 rights when being interviewed.

Miranda v Arizona (1966) established that civilians must be read their 5th amendment rights when being interviewed.

In some military trial documentation it is referred to as Miranda/Tempia waiver.

More than you ever wanted to know. :D

[August]

Way to go America.
As long as some bigot a.. holes can shut up people like this, we will have wars.


Well if you feel froggy Germany then go right ahead and leap. Maybe you'll win this time. :yep:

[Skybird]

Manning got 35 years.

That is more than any blood-dripping bastard who was found guilty of war crimes or genocide.

That should teach anybody considering to help unmasking the powerful a lesson, shouldn't it?!

The persecutor even wanted 70 years. Looking for the dirt under governments' carpets cannot be punished hard enough!

[Feuer Frei!]

Classed as a tactical victory by Assange.

We need more whistle blowers.

Expose, expose, expose.


And as a side note, counting time already served, he could be on parole in 8 years.

[Skybird]

Classed as a tactical victory by Assange.

We need more whistle blowers.

Expose, expose, expose.


And as a side note, counting time already served, he could be on parole in 8 years.
Parole granted? For him? You cannot be serious. They want an example set that intimidates all future wannabe-examiners of the government's dirty laundry.

[Feuer Frei!]

Parole granted? For him? You cannot be serious. They want an example set that intimidates all future wannabe-examiners of the government's dirty laundry.

He is expected to have his first parole hearing in seven years, should the current sentence stand up to appeal, according to defense lawyer David Coombs

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/bradley-manning-sentencing-wikileaks-live

If the big boys club had it their way, he would have died in prison.

[Tribesman]

That is more than any blood-dripping bastard who was found guilty of war crimes or genocide.

Galic, Renzaho and Seromba are just 3 recent cases that prove that false.
Yet since in your twisted ideology you state that there is no such thing as war crimes and genocide is an acceptable necessity they should never have been prosecuted.:hmmm:

[eddie]

Now, he wants to live as a woman! That should go over real good in prison!:haha:

http://www.today.com/news/bradley-manning-i-want-live-woman-6C10974915

[AVGWarhawk]

Just when you thought you had seen it all. :doh:

[Herr-Berbunch]

Wants the name changing to Womaning, prolly saw that TG thread and thought 'hmmm, how can I make life more difficult for them?'

[Bubblehead1980]

For a long time I did not believe the US had political prisoners but we do, Bradley Manning is one of them. 35 years and I bet he will do every bit of bit if he lives that long. Glad Snowden made it to Russia.What kind of screwed up world do we live in when RUSSIA is the safe haven for a whistleblower? lol The US I was born and raised in, would have been the country taking in those being pursued by a criminal government. Really is sad:down:

[Tchocky]

Oh I sense an incoming carpet-bombing of partisanship.

[WernherVonTrapp]

If you believe John Dalberg-Acton's quote: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." What about on an individual basis? If as individuals we entitled ourselves with absolute power over anything and/or everything, would we too be corrupt absolutely?
Or does it only apply to those guys running a government?:hmmm:

[Oberon]

Oh I sense an incoming carpet-bombing of partisanship.

The bombers rarely stop, except perhaps to reload and refuel.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

If you believe John Dalberg-Acton's quote: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." What about on an individual basis? If as individuals we entitled ourselves with absolute power over anything and/or everything, would we too be corrupt absolutely?
Or does it only apply to those guys running a government?:hmmm:I'm pretty sure that power would corrupt me. Therefore I don't plan seeking political office.

[Jimbuna]

Now, he wants to live as a woman! That should go over real good in prison!:haha:

http://www.today.com/news/bradley-manning-i-want-live-woman-6C10974915

Thus far (early days) it doesn't look like the army will be giving much help.

[CaptainHaplo]

Oh I sense an incoming carpet-bombing of partisanship.

I don't think there is anything "partisan" about the Manning case. While people have different opinions about the war itself, the reality is that nothing he "leaked" was going to change anyone's mind, nor did it really tell us anything of earth-shattering importance.

Pretty much every "whistleblower" claim regarding the Manning leaks can be disproven when given more than a look at a headline.

The "collateral murder" video - heavily edited by the Wikileaks website - when shown in its full entirety shows clear adherence to the ROE in place.

The "pedophile contractors" scandal supposedly being hushed up by the state department - turns out that the US said the would NOT quash the freedom of the press and the hush attempt was made by the Afghan powers, not the US ones.

Haiti minimum wage issues - wow, our ambassador lobbied for keeping wages low in Haiti so we could have cheap underwear and jeans - in other words a government employee looking out for the citizens he is supposed to be serving... well ok that MIGHT be newsworthy - but it still isn't "whistleblowing".

Nothing Manning leaked demonstrated any type of specific, non-legal activity against the US citizenry - that I have ever seen. If someone has it, show me.

Now Snowden on the other hand - IS a whistleblower - because his actions informed the public about what their government is doing to them, illegally.

Simple as that.

[Platapus]

I think 35 years is an appropriate sentence.

As for his parole, that would be governed under AR 15-130 and DODI 1325.07

He may appear before a military parole board, but generally he won't be released on parole until he has served at least 1/3 of his sentence. AR 15-130 Chap 3-1e.

Chapter 3-2 lists the criteria the ACPB can consider but they are non-binding on the part of the ACPB.

Additionally, he can be released under Mandatory Supervised Release (MSR), which is technically different from parole but similar after serving 10 years.

Of course if Manning is transferred into the Federal Bureau of Prisons he would be eligible for any number of the FBoP early release programs.

Of course, none of this is guaranteed.

[Herr-Berbunch]

For a long time I did not believe the US had political prisoners but we do, Bradley Manning is one of them.

So just a political prisoner, no disclosure of classified material - not just a few but thousands of documents? :hmmm: As Army Intelligence Analyst you think (s)he had the right to just hand over classified material just because (s)he had some moral objections?

Where would you draw the line at revealing classified information? Documents proving murder/manslaughter maybe, but there is no way that some 400,000+ documents were proof read by Womanning to ensure that.

[Bubblehead1980]

Oh I sense an incoming carpet-bombing of partisanship.

This is not about pertisianship, Rand Paul could be President and if he had this kid put in prison for 35 years, I would be just as up in arms.

[Bubblehead1980]

So just a political prisoner, no disclosure of classified material - not just a few but thousands of documents? :hmmm: As Army Intelligence Analyst you think (s)he had the right to just hand over classified material just because (s)he had some moral objections?

Where would you draw the line at revealing classified information? Documents proving murder/manslaughter maybe, but there is no way that some 400,000+ documents were proof read by Womanning to ensure that.


I could care less if it was "classified" , the government covers things up but labeling them classified. I could care less if he was in the Army, he saw something wrong and exposed it instead of being just another sheep he did something about it.That is the problem, so many with the attitude of go along to get along who are in a position to stop this madness refuse to do so. More Snowden's and Mannings could really help out nation in the long run.Aiding the enemy? no. Manning was persecuted because he dared to stand up to big brother. Snowden would be in same situation or worst but he was smart enough to flee and a sad sign of the times is that he fled our government's persecution to RUSSIA. Oh the sad, sad irony of that.

[August]

Manning is a traitor to his country. As far as i'm concerned he got off easy.

[Stealhead]

Now, he wants to live as a woman! That should go over real good in prison!:haha:

http://www.today.com/news/bradley-manning-i-want-live-woman-6C10974915


You clearly do not know much about the US military prison system.It is very different from civilian prisons for starters most people in FT.Leavenworth are 1st time offenders and most are not violent criminals though some are and these types would be a special even more controlled area.The people in Leavenworth want to do their time get out and move on with their lives.It is probably about the safest place Bradley or Chelsey Manning could be of course a very strictly regulated one far more so than a civilian prison.

There is no way that Manning could have read much of the materiel he exposed we are talking several hundred thousand documents.This simple fact causes me to have a hard time believing the "morale high" ground his defense claims it also makes me disagree that he could have had had a true intent to aid the enemy.It seems fairly clear that the peers present at his courts marshal where not convinced on these things either.

A member of the armed forces of the United Sates swears or affirms an oath that makes him or her legally obligated not to do certain things if they do certain things they should be prepared to face the consequences which may be harsh.

The right way to expose something being done by the military that you know is unlawful would be to go the route that several USAF officers did in late 1969 when they where a part of the "frag chain" in Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia.They where highly concerned because it was clear to them that either Nixon or a military officer could if they wanted frag(write up orders for an attack) an attack anywhere in the world even a nuclear attack.what they did was write letters to members of the armed services committee and they did do something about Watergate ending up over shadowing Nixon's other violation of the constitution by expanding the war into Cambodia(this was in 1969 pre-1970 land invasion).

[eddie]

You clearly do not know much about the US military prison system.It is very different from civilian prisons for starters most people in FT.Leavenworth are 1st time offenders and most are not violent criminals though some are and these types would be a special even more controlled area.The people in Leavenworth want to do their time get out and move on with their lives.It is probably about the safest place Bradley or Chelsey Manning could be of course a very strictly regulated one far more so than a civilian prison.

I see what you are saying, but don't really care where they lock up this girlyman! Just as long as he/she is behind bars!

[Sailor Steve]

I could care less if it was "classified".
So you do care that it was classified. Oh, you meant "couldn't care less". "Could care less" is a butchering of the phrase that has become common, but is nevertheless inverted from what it actually means.

I know, I'm doing "it" again (not criticizing but correcting). Sorry, it's part of my nature.

[Feuer Frei!]

Manning is a traitor to his country

(Un)fortunately the courts didn't agree with you.

Like Ellsberg said: "This country was founded by traitors. Every signer of the Declaration of Independence when they pledged their lives and their sacred honor knew they could be hanged for treason, and some of them were"

[Skybird]

compared to the treason of the Bush gang, Manning is a harmless nothing. Bush has the blood of us soldiers on his hands, over lies. He betrayed the American people, tricked them into a needless, wanted war. If Manning deserved 35 years then Bush and each of his conspiratory accomlices deserves to roast over fire for the next 3500 years. Manning is a naive and confused individual. Bush is a major criminal and traitor, and he is soaking with the blood of the Americans that got injured or killed over his lies, and the blood of tens of thousands of civilians.

"We know they have them and we know where they are."

"Mobile biolabs."

"Saddam assisted and gave shelter to AQ."

Ha! Manning in no way compares to that scale of treason, lies and betrayal.

[August]

(Un)fortunately the courts didn't agree with you.

They agreed enough to put the little traitor away for 35 years.

Like Ellsberg said: "This country was founded by traitors. Every signer of the Declaration of Independence when they pledged their lives and their sacred honor knew they could be hanged for treason, and some of them were"

Manning is not anything like the signers of the DoI.

[Tchocky]

The epithet traitor applies great malice to the crimes, which I don't think is present. Wrong and worth punishing under UCMJ, but not traitorous.

[Stealhead]

Platypus is the resident JAG/UCMJ expert on these forums but as I understand under the UCMJ is only one article covering treason expressly or in fact treasonable espionage;Article 106a.

Manning was not charged with 106a.

He was charged with violating Articles 104,134,and 92 he was not found guilty on 134 which is the closest thing to treason of the articles he was charged with but it is sort of round about.

Maybe someone can better explain it but as I am reading things he was not charged directly with treason.

[eddie]

Now he wants to get married!

http://www.today.com/news/manning-wants-get-married-have-family-attorney-says-6C10984804

[Stealhead]

Apparently even his defense had a psychologist evaluate Manning during the courts marshal he said that Manning had narcissistic tendencies.

So now he makes narcissistic statements via his lawyer.

[WernherVonTrapp]

Apparently even his defense had a psychologist evaluate Manning during the courts marshal he said that Manning had narcissistic tendencies.

So now he makes narcissistic statements via his lawyer.
I'm not surprised, especially in light of all the current News releases, that it was all about Manning right from the start. I don't believe it had, in fact, anything to do with his perceived governmental wrongdoings. There's always an underlying cause.

[Stealhead]

I have a feeling that he was disillusioned with his standing in the army.I think he did the entire thing thinking he would become some sort of hero and not get into very much trouble.

[Jimbuna]

Now he wants to get married!

http://www.today.com/news/manning-wants-get-married-have-family-attorney-says-6C10984804

You offering? :hmm2:

:O:

[eddie]

Would be a cold day in hell, before I would even want to be in the same state with this boy! Or girl, whatever he thinks of himself.:88)

[Platapus]

He was charged with violating Articles 104,134,and 92 he was not found guilty on 134 which is the closest thing to treason of the articles he was charged with but it is sort of round about.

Maybe someone can better explain it but as I am reading things he was not charged directly with treason.

I think you understand it quite clearly. Manning was never charged with the crime of Treason. Treason is actually a pretty hard crime to prove. There was enough on Manning to get the suitable sentence without even trying to go for Treason.

However, the use of the term "Traitor" does not, and should not be linked solely to the crime of Treason.

A traitor has two definitions both of which apply to Manning but differently.

: one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty


: one who commits treason
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traitor)

The two definitions, while related are different. Manning can be appropriately called a traitor under the first definition but not the second.

While there is considerable debate whether his betrayal was or was not justified, he was convicted of breaking the laws and regulations concerning the trust in properly handling classified and sensitive information.

From the standpoint of the court, Manning is a traitor, but he has not committed treason.

[Platapus]

Now he wants to get married!




I think Manning should get married... in about 35 years give or take a few.

[August]

Thank you Platapus.

Manning didn't care one little bit if the thousands and thousands of classified documents he basically tossed into the street would be of tactical or strategic value to our enemies. Whether they will be or not remains to be seen and may already have in ways that we don't recognize (or officially admit to) yet.

What troubles me is the sheer volume of it. It wouldn't be the first time Intel Analysts have managed to extract valuable military information from reams of seemingly unconnected low level communications intercepts. We do that stuff all the time.

[Stealhead]

There seems to be a slight misunderstanding here I am in no way saying that that Manning is not a traitor I way saying that as I understood it he was not charged with treason.I kind of had the first meaning stuck in my head.

My uncle was crypto in the USAF back in the 60's and early 70's.In 1970 he was in Italy and two members of his unit went to the nearest Soviet consulate and defected.Their unit was a spook unit so they listened in on Soviet communications and figured out a pretty good deal according to my uncle.Of course the Russians knew they where being watched and they watched us it become pretty regular for a Soviet spooks to say "good night John" in English(other typical American name) and the American spooks would say Good night Ivan(typical Russian name) in Russian.

Anyway those two defectors obviously gave the Soviets all of the information about how the USAF and NSA where listening in and understanding much of their codes because about two weeks after the defection the soviets changed their system and it took everyone a few weeks to figure out the code changes.

My uncle says that his unit(and others) where able to tell that the Arabs where getting ready for Yom Kippur back in 73 because they intercepted a lot of traffic between the USSR,Egypt,and Syira I think Kissinger gave the Israelis that information but they did not heed it.My uncle liked listing to the Egyptians the most he listened in on a flight of EAF Mig-21s that got somehow disoriented and flew into the Mediterranean they figured out something was wrong just before becoming static.Those are the things he can freely discuss.

@Eddie then stay way from Kansas, anyway remember that hie/she or whatever own defense team labeled him a narcissist (a person in love with themselves to put it simply) so you probably should not put too much thought into anything he does or says because he does not care about others very much unless of course they are admiring him.Saddam Huessien had a narcissistic personality disorder before his neck got broke on the gallows.

[Catfish]

:hmm2:Just had to reread this "... for not helping the enemy".

So apart from cloudy 'terrorism', who is the 'enemy of the United States' ? I mean, against whom exactly are they in war, at present ?

[Oberon]

:hmm2:Just had to reread this "... for not helping the enemy".

So apart from cloudy 'terrorism', who is the 'enemy of the United States' ? I mean, against whom exactly are they in war, at present ?

If GT is anything to go by, each other. :haha:

[August]

:hmm2:Just had to reread this "... for not helping the enemy".

So apart from cloudy 'terrorism', who is the 'enemy of the United States' ? I mean, against whom exactly are they in war, at present ?

You think that an enemy can only be an enemy if there is a declared war?

[Platapus]

:hmm2:Just had to reread this "... for not helping the enemy".

So apart from cloudy 'terrorism', who is the 'enemy of the United States' ? I mean, against whom exactly are they in war, at present ?

That is the tricky question. Neither the U.S.C nor the CFR defines the term enemy by itself. When used in most contexts, the term enemy is most often used with the phrase "declared war".

We are not currently in a legal state of declared war. The trouble is that since WWII, while we have been involved in a lot of fighting, the United States has not entered into the legal state of War.

Congress weasels a bit by authorizing military action, but not actually declaring war. We even have the War Powers Act which allows the US to act like they are at war but ain't.. at least for a while.

This weaseling makes convicting people of "aiding the enemy" a bit dicey... not impossible though. It helps when the person confesses. :yep:

And hence the problem. The laws were written with the assumption that the United States is either "at war" or "not at war", and the wording of the laws is based on this assumption.

With our history of weaseling, the laws, as written are obsolete. Why is this a problem? It is a problem because now the Executive and Legislative branches of the government are "forced" into a position where they have to come up with contemporary interpretations of law.

This is not how the system is supposed to work. :nope:

Once the Judicial branch determines that a law, or wording of a law, is no longer contemporaneously accurate, the corrective action is to pass the law back to the legislative branch for updating -- going through all the steps for making a new law (which, in effect they would be doing). Then the Executive approves or disapproves via the "veto", and the system works as designed.

What we are doing is empowering the Executive Branch to provide their own interpretations of an non-contemporaneity wording of an existing law.

This is not a power granted to the Executive Branch. :nope:

The interpretative authority of the Executive Branch is in generating regulations on how the Executive branch will implement a law as written.

If the Executive Branch considers a law to be either obsolete or its wording non-contemporaneous its only authority is to pass the law back to the Legislative Branch for evaluation or rewording.

Our systems of legislative checks and balances works rather well... when it is followed. It is a system deliberately and purposefully designed to be inconvenient and time consuming.

The attitude of the government claiming that "we don't have time, let's just approve this 'one' exception" is the fast track to unhindered power. :nope:

If we are going to change the interpretation of a law (and we often need to), then we must formally change the law (which means using the system as defined in the Constitution).

Determining who is kinda sorta "enemy-ish" in an environment where the US is kinda sorta in a "war-ish" state is the slipperiest of slippery slopes (S3). Coating this S3 with the pavement of good intentions/national security/we have to do 'something'/... does not make the slope any less sloapy nor slippery.

[Skybird]

Until today the Wikileaks disclosure of material has more told the public about how Western governments abuse, misinform, lie and betray amongst themselves and to their people, than that there was data revealed allowing an "enemy" to stage a plot or attack against Western states. So if one would turn that argument into a statement about "helping the enemy by disclosing the material", one necessarily implies that once considers the worst enemy to be once own state and government.

The campaign against whistleblowers, source protection and journalism worth the name has already began long time before Obama. The prosecution of Assange and the draconic sentences against Manning and now doubt: Snowden as well if they get him, is for the most about intimidation. So that never again somebody rips of the mask off the US government's face. What these three did was reminding their own people that politics is a dirty business from A to Z, and that cheating, lies and deception, manipulation and betrayal even of the own people is normal practice. And for this heresy, to remind of this obvious truth and bolster it with official material proving it, the heretics must burn, burn, burn.

Because the logic by which many people tick is this: that the government plays foul is not so important. To say and show that it plays foul - that is the much worse crime here.

To keep the glorious shine - that is what it's about. And dare you mentioning that it is only an empty facade! The gates to all hellfire shall open and swallow you!

[August]

To keep the glorious shine - that is what it's about. And dare you mentioning that it is only an empty facade! The gates to all hellfire shall open and swallow you!


:haha::har:

[CaptainMattJ.]

Except that manning released over 700,000 documents, any number of which could contain valuable information that should very well be classified.

He signed a contract when he decided to go into the military. Regardless of how you feel about it, you have given up many of your privileges when you go in, and that includes submitting classified information wherever you want to whoever you want.

Manning didnt have a "duty to the american people" to release as many random classified documents as he wanted, the very large majority of which he didnt read and didnt know what he was releasing. Hes not a hero, hes an idiot.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I hope this will shut up some of the people in the Internets Tubes who were proclaiming that Manning could not get a fair trial in the military and that military courts just rubber stamp the charges. :nope:

Well, given the law and all that, that he would be found guilty is a ... given. The greater fault is more like why some other people were not punished, but the law never covers that...

But really, trying to say the military system is fair just because it dropped one charge is logically weak. As you yourself point out, its lack makes little substantive difference. In fact, it reeks of being a charge the prosecution slipped in just so the judge can throw it out and show us how "fair" the justice system is.

[Platapus]

Well, given the law and all that, that he would be found guilty is a ... given.

I think that was more influenced by Manning confessing than any characterizations of the military court system. :D