Wikileaks: Bradley Manning military hearing bias row
 

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?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16211977

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/publicat...x#.TuvSbfKwVfM

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.

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.

But on which charges?
There certainly is a big pile of them of various natures.

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 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.

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:

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.

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.

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.