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
    Thanks Received:
    5,895
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +5,895
    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
    Thanks Received:
    8,957
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,957
    If anything, not tough enough.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Artevelde
    Offline

    Artevelde Senior Member

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

    RoccoR Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,351
    Thanks Received:
    826
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Reynoldsburg, OH
    Ratings:
    +1,286
    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
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. freedombecki
    Offline

    freedombecki Let's go swimmin'! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    23,683
    Thanks Received:
    5,895
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +5,895
    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
    Offline

    RoccoR Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,351
    Thanks Received:
    826
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Reynoldsburg, OH
    Ratings:
    +1,286
    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
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Billo_Really
    Offline

    Billo_Really Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    16,941
    Thanks Received:
    1,231
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    Long Beach, Ca
    Ratings:
    +1,542
    What's the difference between Bradley Manning and Daniel Elsberg?
     
  8. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist "Remain Calm People!" Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    20,901
    Thanks Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Location:
    Trinity Site
    Ratings:
    +5,096
    An Army PFC had access to all those files by himself? Bullshit.
     
  9. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,272
    Thanks Received:
    5,670
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,711
    You've been lied to.

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

    RoccoR Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,351
    Thanks Received:
    826
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Reynoldsburg, OH
    Ratings:
    +1,286
    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
     

Share This Page