Judicial Lynching of Bradley Manning

[daveman]

i agree. it really isn't so much of a case of what he did as the way he did it.

also, his charges include a crimes other than the exposure of war crimes.

Indeed. The material he released included the names of some Afghan nationals who worked with the US military.

The Taliban has those names, and has said they will hunt those people down.

Their blood is on Manning's hands.

Kinda takes the wind out of the sails of those who claim he has some moral high ground here, huh?

Are you saying the US invasion of Afghanistan was a moral response to the murders of nearly three thousand innocent Americans?

Yes, it was. Why? What would have been your response? NOTE: Israel had nothing to do with it.

 

[daveman]

Manning was obligated to reveal war crimes under Article 85 of the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. Maybe Fox News wasn't interested in reporting what Manning was required to reveal?

Please link for me where it says he was obligated to reveal anything to Wikileaks.

Direct your question to the Pentagon:

"'Enshrined in the US Army Subject Schedule No. 27-1 is 'the obligation to report all violations of the law of war.' At his guilty plea hearing, Manning explained that he had gone to his chain of command and asked them to investigate the 'Collateral Murder' video and other 'war porn,' but his superiors refused. 'I was disturbed by the response to injured children,' Manning stated. He was also bothered by the soldiers depicted in the video who 'seemed to not value human life by referring to [their targets] as "dead bastards.'"

Bradley Manning?s Legal Duty to Expose War Crimes | Global Research

And when a complainant can't get satisfaction from his chain of command, he's required to report to the Inspector General -- not Wikileaks.

 

[daveman]

i agree. it really isn't so much of a case of what he did as the way he did it.

also, his charges include a crimes other than the exposure of war crimes.

Indeed. The material he released included the names of some Afghan nationals who worked with the US military.

The Taliban has those names, and has said they will hunt those people down.

Their blood is on Manning's hands.

Kinda takes the wind out of the sails of those who claim he has some moral high ground here, huh?

And that is where the trial will, and should, nail him BUT limiting his defense options is wrong. His defense should not be limited so that a conviction is easier for the government.

He should also not be tried in a military court.

It does seem like a conflict of interest, doesn't it?

Nevertheless, I'd hate to establish precedent of having civilian courts try military cases.

 

[Billo_Really]

Yes, it was. Why? What would have been your response? NOTE: Israel had nothing to do with it.

Neither did Afghanistan.

There is nothing moral about attacking someone who did not attack you first.

 

[Billo_Really]

It does seem like a conflict of interest, doesn't it?

Nevertheless, I'd hate to establish precedent of having civilian courts try military cases.

Civilian courts have better conviction records and at least to a better job at the illusion of due process and justice for all.

Military banana trials allow evidence obtained through torture, deny the defendant his right to question all of his accusers, or see all the evidence against him.

 

[Billo_Really]

Please link for me where it says he was obligated to reveal anything to Wikileaks.

How is what he did any different than Daniel Elsberg?

 

[Katzndogz]

The government would say anything. How come Bradley Manning didn't endanger the lives of anyone by publishing military secrets but Ed Snowden endangered the lives of others by publishing the extent of government surveillance on civilians?

 

[FA_Q2]

Indeed. The material he released included the names of some Afghan nationals who worked with the US military.

The Taliban has those names, and has said they will hunt those people down.

Their blood is on Manning's hands.

Kinda takes the wind out of the sails of those who claim he has some moral high ground here, huh?

And that is where the trial will, and should, nail him BUT limiting his defense options is wrong. His defense should not be limited so that a conviction is easier for the government.

He should also not be tried in a military court.

It does seem like a conflict of interest, doesn't it?

Nevertheless, I'd hate to establish precedent of having civilian courts try military cases.

That is why you set precedence for civilian courts to try whistleblower cases within the military. I think that is a good solution as these are the cases in question where there is a serious conflict of interest. Not all cases should be tried in a civilian court but certainly those cases where someone ‘outed’ the military for wrongdoing should NOT be tried by the military itself.

 

[Katzndogz]

If Snowden published any military secrets he should be tried within the military. Since all he did was publish details of illegal civilian surveillance he should get a Medal of Freedom award.

 

[FA_Q2]

i agree. it really isn't so much of a case of what he did as the way he did it.

also, his charges include a crimes other than the exposure of war crimes.

Indeed. The material he released included the names of some Afghan nationals who worked with the US military.

The Taliban has those names, and has said they will hunt those people down.

Their blood is on Manning's hands.

Kinda takes the wind out of the sails of those who claim he has some moral high ground here, huh?

Are you saying the US invasion of Afghanistan was a moral response to the murders of nearly three thousand innocent Americans?

Moral response is a bad way to phrase that IMHO. Rather, it is what justified our response.

As far as Afghanistan not having anything to do with 9/11, that is completely false. The terrorists that planned, trained and executed that attack along with the support structure for it and future as well as past attacks were harbored in that nation. If Afghanistan was capable of taking care of that problem on their own, then the attack would have been unnecessary. As they were not, that is what happens. There was no other response as other responses would have simply ensured that attacks could continue unabated from that area to USA.

Afghanistan is the ONLY recent war that we should have fought. Unfortunately, it also happens to be a war that we really never committed to.

 

[Billo_Really]

That is why you set precedence for civilian courts to try whistleblower cases within the military. I think that is a good solution as these are the cases in question where there is a serious conflict of interest. Not all cases should be tried in a civilian court but certainly those cases where someone ‘outed’ the military for wrongdoing should NOT be tried by the military itself.

They shouldn't be tried at all.

The military has got no business doing something wrong in our name.

Citizens of this country have a right to know if they are, so we can take action to stop it.

 

[Billo_Really]

Moral response is a bad way to phrase that IMHO. Rather, it is what justified our response.

As far as Afghanistan not having anything to do with 9/11, that is completely false. The terrorists that planned, trained and executed that attack along with the support structure for it and future as well as past attacks were harbored in that nation. If Afghanistan was capable of taking care of that problem on their own, then the attack would have been unnecessary. As they were not, that is what happens. There was no other response as other responses would have simply ensured that attacks could continue unabated from that area to USA.

Afghanistan is the ONLY recent war that we should have fought. Unfortunately, it also happens to be a war that we really never committed to.

We're harboring Jose Posada, a terrorist who put a bomb on a plane that killed 73 Cubans. Does that mean Cuba has a legitmate right to attack us? And what do you think we do at the School of the America's? Do you think Central American country's have a right to attack us over that?

The Taliban offered to turn over those guilty of 9/11 and Bush refused their request.

 

[Billo_Really]

The government would say anything. How come Bradley Manning didn't endanger the lives of anyone by publishing military secrets but Ed Snowden endangered the lives of others by publishing the extent of government surveillance on civilians?

I don't think either one endangered lives.

I think both reported government war crimes and should be heralded as US patriots.

People who think they should be imprisoned for what they did, should go live in Weimar, Germany, where they appreciate shit like that.

 

[Katzndogz]

Snowden didn't report any war crimes, unless you believe that the United States government is at war with the citizens of the United States.

 

[FA_Q2]

That is why you set precedence for civilian courts to try whistleblower cases within the military. I think that is a good solution as these are the cases in question where there is a serious conflict of interest. Not all cases should be tried in a civilian court but certainly those cases where someone ‘outed’ the military for wrongdoing should NOT be tried by the military itself.

They shouldn't be tried at all.

The military has got no business doing something wrong in our name.

Citizens of this country have a right to know if they are, so we can take action to stop it.

That is what the trial is for – determining if that is the case. You see, if he happens to be selling secretes to the Chinese for instance and just released some of the other stuff in the process, then that can be brought before the court. If the state cannot prove to a jury of his PEERS (the real key here) that he was actually nefarious and destroying our nation, then he will be let go. If they can, then he needs to go to jail.

Saying that they should not even be tried is rather silly. When the state thinks you have committed a crime, whether you are innocent or not, you are tried. That is the purpose of a trial, to determine guilt. I do not know that he is innocent. I might THINK that he is but then again, the information that we have is what is fed to us through the media and other sources. It really is not in the Media’s interest to talk about these people as bad guys, it makes a better story with the righteous on the run from a nefarious government. We don’t have all the facts and while we have enough to form an opinion there certainly is not enough for a real judgment on whether or not he is truly innocent or guilty.

 

[FA_Q2]

Moral response is a bad way to phrase that IMHO. Rather, it is what justified our response.

As far as Afghanistan not having anything to do with 9/11, that is completely false. The terrorists that planned, trained and executed that attack along with the support structure for it and future as well as past attacks were harbored in that nation. If Afghanistan was capable of taking care of that problem on their own, then the attack would have been unnecessary. As they were not, that is what happens. There was no other response as other responses would have simply ensured that attacks could continue unabated from that area to USA.

Afghanistan is the ONLY recent war that we should have fought. Unfortunately, it also happens to be a war that we really never committed to.

We're harboring Jose Posada, a terrorist who put a bomb on a plane that killed 73 Cubans. Does that mean Cuba has a legitmate right to attack us? And what do you think we do at the School of the America's? Do you think Central American country's have a right to attack us over that?

The Taliban offered to turn over those guilty of 9/11 and Bush refused their request.

Links for these people. When I searched the first, there was nothing on him other than he was a cartoonist.

The school, I don’t know much about that.

 

[daveman]

And that is where the trial will, and should, nail him BUT limiting his defense options is wrong. His defense should not be limited so that a conviction is easier for the government.

He should also not be tried in a military court.

It does seem like a conflict of interest, doesn't it?

Nevertheless, I'd hate to establish precedent of having civilian courts try military cases.

That is why you set precedence for civilian courts to try whistleblower cases within the military. I think that is a good solution as these are the cases in question where there is a serious conflict of interest. Not all cases should be tried in a civilian court but certainly those cases where someone ‘outed’ the military for wrongdoing should NOT be tried by the military itself.

I can go along with that.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

"Notwithstanding your oath and the law, you Bradley are not just authorized to disseminate classified information, but REQUIRED to do so."

^ That's the thrust of the silly lolberal spin.

Bradley may not be getting particularly fair treatment. And that's wrong.

But Manning himself is a fucking criminal and should get convicted based on his own behavior and admissions.

Fuck him.

 

[Billo_Really]

Links for these people. When I searched the first, there was nothing on him other than he was a cartoonist.

The school, I don’t know much about that.

Here you go...

Venezuela has demanded that Posada Carriles be extradited to face charges there related to his masterminding of a 1976 bombing of a Cuban civilian passenger jet that killed 73 people. He evaded punishment for the crime—at the time the worst single act of terrorism in the Western Hemisphere—by escaping a Venezuelan prison in 1985.

Violating international and bilateral treaties, Washington has rebuffed Venezuela’s request, charging Posada Carriles instead with minor violations of US immigration law for entering the US without a visa and lying to immigration officials. Last month, the terrorist, who had been in federal custody since May 2005, was set free on bail and returned to Miami.

The release has provoked international protests and exposed the hypocrisy of the so-called “global war on terrorism” proclaimed by a government that has sponsored and continues to harbor and protect a wanted terrorist.

As far as the School of the America's...

School of The Americas

"This delightful venue has trained 60,000 Latin Americans from whose ranks were spawned the most monstrous torturers, homicidal maniacs, state terrorists and despots, who have terrorized and perpetrated genocidal warfare against the civilian populations of Central and South America for five decades. This includes the death or disappearance of 200,000 Guatemalans and innumerable other atrocities... In Colombia 2 million have been displaced and thousands are still reliving the horrors of their torture - not surprising since, with 10,000 graduates from the SOA, Colombia is the school's largest customer and has the worst human rights record on the continent."

 

[Billo_Really]

That is what the trial is for – determining if that is the case. You see, if he happens to be selling secretes to the Chinese for instance and just released some of the other stuff in the process, then that can be brought before the court. If the state cannot prove to a jury of his PEERS (the real key here) that he was actually nefarious and destroying our nation, then he will be let go. If they can, then he needs to go to jail.

Saying that they should not even be tried is rather silly. When the state thinks you have committed a crime, whether you are innocent or not, you are tried. That is the purpose of a trial, to determine guilt. I do not know that he is innocent. I might THINK that he is but then again, the information that we have is what is fed to us through the media and other sources. It really is not in the Media’s interest to talk about these people as bad guys, it makes a better story with the righteous on the run from a nefarious government. We don’t have all the facts and while we have enough to form an opinion there certainly is not enough for a real judgment on whether or not he is truly innocent or guilty.

He's being punished for reporting a war crime.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZNJm35V2_0]Collateral Murder: WikiLeaks bombshell 'killing' video goes online - YouTube[/ame]