Another Bad Day for Manning

Discussion in 'Wikileaks' started by freedombecki, May 1, 2012.

  1. freedombecki
    Offline

    freedombecki Let's go swimmin'! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    23,683
    Likes Received:
    5,891
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +5,891 / 0 / -0
    Another Bad Day for Bradley Manning

    hotairdotcom

    Apparently the military court didn't think much of Bradley Manning's attorney's idea to dismiss the most serious charges and consolidating all the others, which would guarantee his client a short sentence. His trial starts in September.

    Do you think the court is being too tough?
  2. California Girl
    Offline

    California Girl BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50,339
    Likes Received:
    8,957
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,957 / 0 / -0
    If anything, not tough enough.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Artevelde
    Offline

    Artevelde Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2012
    Messages:
    3,431
    Likes Received:
    262
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Brussels, Belgium
    Ratings:
    +262 / 0 / -0
    He'll have his day in court I guess. And afterwards probably many more days in jail.
  4. RoccoR
    Online

    RoccoR VIP Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    2,855
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Reynoldsburg, OH
    Ratings:
    +593 / 6 / -0
    Artevelde, et al,

    While I don't want to be in a position of defending Bradley Manning, there are a number "truths" and "facts" that need explained.

    (COMMENT)

    • First off, the Army using the FBI as a screen to withhold facts (discovery) in the case, leads me to believe that the Prosecutor is intentionally hiding information that might be favorable to the Manning case.

    • Second, hiding the fact that the Government is trying to withhold the findings (to date) from the "Damage Assessment" might be damaging to the Prosecutor's case. By definition, the disclosure of SECRET material would cause "grave damage." As over 700,000 documents were compromised; and that, they are ALL attributed to Manning --- there should be no trouble at all in showing the damage done. Why is the government withholding the information.

    • Third, of the 15 (or so) computers at the SCIF where Manning was suppose to have collected all 700,000 documents, rumor has it that all but 5 of the computers were wiped clean.

    • Manning is charged with being the source; and, that he used special software to extract the information. Yet it appears that there might be computer forensic evidence that more than one user (maybe several) were using such software and portable mass storage devices. If the government is withholding this information, and not charging the others users; then something is wrong with the government investigation.

    • Manning is charged with aiding the enemy by passing the information to "WikiLeaks." And that "WikiLeaks" posted this information in Open Source media. And that Manning intended that hostile elements were the ultimate intended recipients. HOW did Manning get the information to WikiLeaks? If the government has no link between Manning and "WikiLeaks," is the delay of discovery intended to withhold the facts?

    There are two aspects you need to consider.

    • In an "Espionage" Case (18 USC 793/Article 106a), the principle/primary investigative agency has to decide if the want to pursue the case to find-out the facts (counterintelligence) or prosecute (criminal). In this case, they opted to go after the quick arrest and prosecution.

    • The other aspect is that one has to determine is if the event was committed "with intent or reason to believe that such matter would be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation." What was the intent? The Prosecutor is saying that it is not necessary to show "intent" or the "advantage given."

    • There is the question of volume. If all 700,000 documents passed through Manning; yet:

    This matter of intent is very important. It might explain why the government is trying to retard the defense requests for disclosure.

    As far as the dismissal of the charges, the government cannot afford to do that after vilifying Bradley Manning, a Nobel Prize nominee. There would be tremendous political consequences for the Judge, and the JAG/DOJ Prosecutorial staff. Since a courts martial is subject to appeal, the government would rather the case be overturned on appeal, rather than at trial.

    Let's make sure that we give the Manning Team what they need. If Manning did what they say he did, for the reasons they say hed did it, then there should be thousands of points of direct evidence. If there is not, then something is wrong.

    Most Respectfully,
    R
    • Like Like x 1
  5. freedombecki
    Offline

    freedombecki Let's go swimmin'! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    23,683
    Likes Received:
    5,891
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +5,891 / 0 / -0
    No disrespect intended, Mr. RoccoR, but military classified information is not an item for public scrutiny. How would you like to serve your country in a mission that required taking out a few people who were set to take out even more people than a 9/11? Then have YOUR COUNTRY pass out to a HOSTILE WITNESS ACCUSED OF ESPIONAGE to enemie countries your name, rank, serial number, the addresses of your next of kin and your personal information?

    You have NO IDEA what you just asked the board to approve.

    NO WAY am I going to sign onto it.
  6. RoccoR
    Online

    RoccoR VIP Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    2,855
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Reynoldsburg, OH
    Ratings:
    +593 / 6 / -0
    freedombecki, et al,

    I'm not asking anyone to buy into anything but good old American Justice.

    (COMMENT)

    BTW, Out of the 700,000 documents alleged to have been supplied by Manning, and WikiLeaks, there was none --- not a single one, that disclosed a HUMINT Source. Not a one. In fact, all the documents seemed to have come through the SIPR (Secret Internet Protocol Router). All HUMINT source info is handled through the HIMINT Control System or HCS. That is a separate network.

    In fact, that is one of the problems the government is having with the "Damage Assessment." Other than some embarrassing stuff, or material that was illegal to classify in the first place (like the famous gun camera video), they are having a hard time demonstrating the damage that was done. It turned out to be very little.

    Most Respectfully,
    R
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Billo_Really
    Offline

    Billo_Really VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,649
    Likes Received:
    1,020
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Location:
    Long Beach, Ca
    Ratings:
    +1,045 / 39 / -0
    What's the difference between Bradley Manning and Daniel Elsberg?
  8. Mad Scientist
    Online

    Mad Scientist Subtle like a Nuclear Weapon! Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    19,618
    Likes Received:
    3,910
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Location:
    Trinity Site
    Ratings:
    +3,984 / 4 / -0
    An Army PFC had access to all those files by himself? Bullshit.
  9. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,184
    Likes Received:
    5,623
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,624 / 0 / -0
    You've been lied to.

    Taliban Use Wikileaks to Hunt, Murder Named Afghans
  10. RoccoR
    Online

    RoccoR VIP Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    2,855
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Reynoldsburg, OH
    Ratings:
    +593 / 6 / -0
    Daveman, et al,

    there are some things that cannot be known for sure in the public domain. The damage done is outlined in the "Damage Assessment." Even the Judge has not seen the evidence yet. They have only just requested it.

    What we do know is that there is a protocol for handling identities of intelligence sources. And if that information is on the SIPR, then it was not protected properly.

    (COMMENT)

    The names released through the SIPR are called Overt Contacts. They are not covert or clandestine intelligence sources. They are all met in an official capacity, in the open. Any of these names can be discovered in any number of ways. If this is true, then it will come out in the damage assessment.

    The identities of covert and clandestine sources are not available on the SIPR. If they were, it would have been a security violation to start with. A source may only be identified via an SCI # (Source Code Identifier).

    Some of the information was declassified because it was classified in violation of standing guidance.

    Forensic discovery:

    Interesting that of the 110,000 documents on Mannings computer, none of them match the 700,000 documents published by WikiLeaks; except for the Gun Camera Video which is UNCLASSIFIED.

    I'm not defending Manning, but I think if we are going to go through the motions of prosecuting him, we should at least be interested in finding out the truth.

    I also thought it was interesting that two prosecution witnesses (SFC Adkins and WO1 Balonek) invoked Article 31 and refused to testify, the defense requested that immunity granted and witnesses be compelled to testify. The prosecution claimed that they were unavailable, even though rumor has it that one was right in the courtroom.


    There is a lot information and circumstances yet to be revealed. But, it is not clear cut that Manning was "THE" source and the "ONLY" source that could have provided the information to WikiLeaks. Nor is it demonstrated HOW he could have communicated that information to WikiLeaks. Other than a web search parameter, there is no connection established between Manning and WikiLeaks (yet); except for a chat conversation with the original source in California.

    Most Respectfully,
    R
  11. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,184
    Likes Received:
    5,623
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,624 / 0 / -0
    For a guy who's not defending Manning, you sure are defending Manning.

    The fact remains that people named in the documents are dead.
  12. freedombecki
    Offline

    freedombecki Let's go swimmin'! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    23,683
    Likes Received:
    5,891
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +5,891 / 0 / -0
    He bragged to internet friends he had used his knowledge and skill to leak classified documents to "someone," blablablah, and that he had to do it.

    I'm still maintaining that while his supervision was lax, no one could have known he took upon himself the power of higher-ups to give away secrets placed in trusted confidence in his hands, considered honorable before discovery. Some of the descriptions I just read seem to show he had an asocial character disorder, and he was relieved of his security clearance due to his odd aggressive behaviors toward coworkers he disliked. He made himself out to be a hero in aberrant social sites on the internet, to cover his traitorous butt. There, being a traitor is irrelevant, because all of them betrayed loyalties to engage in their aberrant social behaviors.

    In the meantime, all the hate-America left is investing in propping up this criminal's reputation to be worthy of a saint exposing military crimes. Instead, his information killed all the Afghan informants who helped rid Afghanistan of Talibanis due to his carelessness and that of Wikileaks director Julian Assange who thought he had the USA pegged to a wall for engaging an enemy who took out the World Trade Center in our country in theirs, but there were flaws, and those flaws killed informants although Wikileaks hotly denies it with rash lies. When you're a sneaky, snarky, sniveling snake, you'll waken to evil at some daybreak.
    Last edited: May 10, 2012
  13. RoccoR
    Online

    RoccoR VIP Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    2,855
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Reynoldsburg, OH
    Ratings:
    +593 / 6 / -0
    daveman; et al,

    I'm for getting at the "whole" truth of the matter; a sound and valid investigation in which we know, with a reasonable certainty, what exactly happened.

    (COMMENT)

    Remember, the US Government did not detect, exploit and neutralize Manning as a threat. I was an outsider that brought Manning to the attention of the government; after the fact.

    It would have taken months of diligent searching to sift through those documents (700,000 of them) to get those names.

    Most Respectfully,
    R
  14. RoccoR
    Online

    RoccoR VIP Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    2,855
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Reynoldsburg, OH
    Ratings:
    +593 / 6 / -0
    freedombecki, et al,

    Yes, there is some serious concern here.

    (COMMENT)

    Yes, the internet conversation seems to be the "original lead." It appears that it is the only single piece of evidence that ties him to the leak. But is it true or was it just bragging? Was Manning the only one involved, or were there more?

    The government just seems to have immediately assumed that Manning was the only one involved and that the entire dump was made by him. Yet with all the computer forensics, they have not been able to figure how he did it.

    On the question of "ACCESS." Access does not mean that you actually have knowledge of the content. It only means that you have the ability to see the content. There were literally several thousand of SIPR account holders that had the exact same access. Manning had nothing unique in terms of SIPR access.

    (COMMENT)

    There seems to be plenty of indicators that suggest that Manning had a questionable mental state and should have been denied access pending further evaluation; agreed.

    There is reasonable suspicion to believe that he was, somehow involved in the leaks.

    (COMMENT)

    I don't know about all this. I'm interested in the basic interrogative. But I would be interested in knowing who you know was killed as a result of the WikiLeaks dump. While the claim has been often made that 100's of informants were at risk of being killed, the US Military is having trouble substantiating that claim.

    Whether it is true or not, might not be the issue. It may be more a matter of intent.

    There is also the question of the original mind of the operation. That is, if you were Country X, and you wanted to damage or neutralize both the military intelligence and diplomatic mission of the US, in either Iraq, Afghanistan or both, then how would you go about doing it? One way is certainly this way.

    We don't know exactly what happened, how it was accomplished, who was all envolved, where all the information was collected, OR --- when, from where and how the information was transmitted to WikiLeaks. When have one name, and one computer, with no connection to the documents released or a connection to WikiLeaks.

    There is simply a lot of serious questions yet to be answered.

    Most Respectfully,
    R
    Last edited: May 13, 2012
  15. freedombecki
    Offline

    freedombecki Let's go swimmin'! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    23,683
    Likes Received:
    5,891
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +5,891 / 0 / -0
    The US Military is not substantiating any claim about informants who were murdered by Talibani/AlQaeda in Afghanistan due to more on the chopping block. This is an information hacker's war, and neither Manning, Assange, nor any of their collaborators are going to come out of this one smelling like anything but the stench of a traitor to America's war on terror.

    Assange just guaranteed America will have a hell of a hard time finding anything at all in the Middle East about people who murder Americans by terrorists they solicit, promote, send damages via proxy, etc.

    When they said many or all of our collaborators to help us win in Afghanistan were killed, many or all were killed due to files with names and addresses double-corroborated with suspicions.

    Assange not only put the knife in American Homeland Security's back, he twisted it for every collaborator that was lost, and no, you cannot have their names, addresses, workplaces, email addys, next of kin, where to leave message info, etc. Do you get it now?
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: May 16, 2012
  16. Hossfly
    Online

    Hossfly Zionut & Dittohead Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    14,871
    Likes Received:
    2,251
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Charlotte,NC/Ft Worth,TX
    Ratings:
    +2,263 / 4 / -0
    Nobel prize? Being in the U.S. Army, I would recommend awarding him a CMH.
    Casket w/Metal Handles.
  17. Billo_Really
    Offline

    Billo_Really VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,649
    Likes Received:
    1,020
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Location:
    Long Beach, Ca
    Ratings:
    +1,045 / 39 / -0
    That's because there weren't any. No one lost their life as a result of the release of this information. Manning is a hero. He's a true patriot. He should be given the Meddle of Honor.

    All he did was report a crime. Those documents show that our government was not doing the things they were telling us they were doing. There is no difference between what Manning did and what Daniel Elsberg did. If our government is committing crimes, we have a right to know.
  18. Hossfly
    Online

    Hossfly Zionut & Dittohead Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    14,871
    Likes Received:
    2,251
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Charlotte,NC/Ft Worth,TX
    Ratings:
    +2,263 / 4 / -0
    The Army will decide what the guilty SOB deserves.
  19. SayMyName
    Offline

    SayMyName Live, Love, Laugh.

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2011
    Messages:
    1,044
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Shanghai, China
    Ratings:
    +151 / 0 / -0
    If not so sad, the entire case against the soldier would be laughable. Having been an army infantry officer, and having served on a courts martial, to make me believe that a specialist grade soldier in the army would have access to information that would require an officer rank of at least O-5 or above with "need to know," as well as "above top secret" clearance is laughable.

    Let's get to where the information really came from. But then, that's not what this hanging a junior enlistedman is all about.
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: May 17, 2012
  20. Douger
    Offline

    Douger BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Messages:
    12,324
    Likes Received:
    914
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Not fucking there !
    Ratings:
    +914 / 0 / -0
    The guy deserves the medal of honor for attempting to expose the Nazi regime(US govt) that wants to own the world.
    I need to go to my waterfalls and pray(to me) for that asteroid strike.

Share This Page