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!

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 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.

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.

Even simpler....adhere to the rules and expectations of the forum as required by the owner.

Can you sell Wiki as an entity fitting that ?

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:

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.

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.

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...

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?

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.

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

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.

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:

Yes, avoid the hype and grandstanding and just do the simple job.

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?

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.

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 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.