Bradley Manning verdict?

[struggle4progress]

11 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Acquittal
	1 (9%)
	Five years on the naked plea and acquittal of all other charges
	0 (0%)
	Five years on the naked plea, and five years on other charges, but acquittal on communicating with the enemy
	0 (0%)
	Ten years on the naked plea, and ten years on other charges, but acquittal on communicating with the enemy
	0 (0%)
	Twenty years on the naked plea and acquittal of all other charges
	0 (0%)
	Twenty years on the naked plea, and five years on other charges, but acquittal on communicating with the enemy
	0 (0%)
	Twenty years on the naked plea, and ten years on other charges, but acquittal on communicating with the enemy
	0 (0%)
	Forty years on all charges, including communicating with the enemy
	2 (18%)
	Life imprisonment
	8 (73%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[JaneyVee]

1. Acquittal. Time served.

[Egalitarian Thug]

24. Care to back that up with something? n/t

[JaneyVee]

35. No, just stating a preference.

[antiquie]

2. Are you asking should be or will be?

[struggle4progress]

4. I actually intended to ask what people expect to happen tomorrow. Sorry I wasn't clear

[arely staircase]

3. I am not sure because

I don't know what mindset is required for the communicating with the enemy. If it has to be intentional, I think he has a shot at acquittal on that one. But if the standard is "should have known", he's screwn.

[LWolf]

5. What do I want, or what do I think will happen? nt

[struggle4progress]

7. What do you think will happen?

[LWolf]

9. Guilty on some or all accounts. Prison.

The specifics? No clue.

[Historic NY]

6. Remember folks this is a military court, not a civilian one..

there is a difference!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[stevenleser]

32. Exactly. Sentences are harsher, particularly if the court/jury believes the accused tarnished the

image of the branch/armed forces.

[Scuba]

8. Courts martial board has been ordered to find him guilty by the Commander in Chief.

OK, it's technically not an order, but "command influence" is very real...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x949166

[TheLion]

10. Clueless

Not only do you have no evidence whatsoever to support what you assert, you have no f'ing clue how military courts work.

[Scuba]

11. My assertion is that the President's statement is influencing the Courts Martial board....

... and there's ample evidence of his making the statement.

While I'm not an attorney, I did once testify in a Courts Martial, so I have a small understanding of how things work. I also know the CG wanted the defendent to be found not guilty, and darned if he wasn't.

[struggle4progress]

12. What military personnel were present when such statement was allegedly made?

[Scuba]

13. Every one with access to Youtube ...

[struggle4progress]

14. Well, let's go through it with a fine-toothed comb. Were there any military personnel present?

I have a whole series of questions, but let's handle them one at a time

Were there any military personnel present?

[Scuba]

15. Why would it matter? When Nixon ordered a world-wide alert in 1973 I didn't hear it from him.

Have fun with your questions.

[struggle4progress]

16. Presuming that answers my 1st question & your prior post answers my 2nd, I'll ask my 3rd

My 1st question was, Were there any military personnel present?
The lack of any substantive answer to this suggests that nobody can prove any military personnel were present

My 2nd question would have been, If no military personnel present, how could any military personnel have learned of the conversation?
I understand from your prior response that you believe military personnel could have learned of the conversation from youtube

My 3rd question is, Was anybody in the Executive branch responsible for circulating the youtube video? The President? His staff? Somebody in an agency under his direction? Somebody in the military?

[struggle4progress]

17. Here is a more complete youtube of the conversation, if it helps your thinking regarding the matter

[Scuba]

28. I'm pretty sure it's not my thinking that needs the help.

[struggle4progress]

29. Then you'll provide a clean fact-based argument for unlawful command influence

[Scuba]

30. I did, and video proof that Obama declared Manning "broke the law".

When the CIC says that, you really think some Captain is going to disagree?

You really need to provide some "clean, fact-based argument" that Obama's statement does NOT influence his subordinates.

[struggle4progress]

33. The prohibition on command influence is intended to ensure a fair trial, by preventing

higher-ups from deliberately applying pressures to the military justice system in manner prejudicial to the defendant, and more generally by preventing higher-ups from carelessly acting in such fashion that subordinates will believe such pressures are applied, if the result is prejudicial to the defendant

In this case, a handful of Manning supporters approached the President at a small private gathering, where apparently no one alleges any military personnel were present, and afterwards provided a mostly unintelligible recording, in which Bradley Manning's name s either never mentioned or at least is never audible. In fact, very little of the recording can be heard clearly, except for a few statements about how the world works or the US being a nation of laws, and the statement "He broke the law." Various persons have published on the web attempts at approximate reconstructed transcripts, with somewhat inconsistent results. In particular, the claim that the conversation was about Manning, although likely from some reconstructions of the recording, is not immediately obvious and may depend somewhat on the context provided by the Manning supporters who produced the recording in the first place

The tape thus has the following curious history: the people who produced the recording, and who want to use it as evidence that the President has prejudiced the Manning trial, are themselves the ones who publicized these statements, which could not possibly have been regarded as prejudicial to Manning, had the statements remained unpublicized. And moreover, due to the poor quality of the recording, the argument -- that the statements are prejudicial to Manning -- relies heavily on the context and reconstruction provided by the persons who produced the recording in the first place. That is, the claim that the President has prejudiced the proceedings is based on the publicity given to this recording, which is largely unintelligible without explanations by the publicizers to explain what the recording shows and to fill its unintelligible gaps by approximate reconstructions -- but the publicity, the explanations, and the first approximate transcripts all originate with the producers of the video. Or, to put it another way, these Manning supporters seem to have set out to prejudice the proceedings so they could argue the proceedings were prejudiced -- and the courts are unlikely to lay the blame for that at the President's feet

As the recording dates from the summer of 2012, and the charges against Manning were filed in July 2010 and in March 2011, the recording cannot have influenced the prosecutors drawing up the charges

I suppose it might be grounds for appeal, if anyone could show that any of the prosecutor or the judge had had watched the video or had read the approximate transcripts

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. They will be "good soldiers" and find the whistle blower guilty.

[Pelican]

19. Doesn't count as whistleblowing...

.. when you dump everything you can get your hands on, don't even know what you are distributing or attempt to utilize the procedures in place for whistleblowers.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Tsk, tsk. Whistle blowers are required to follow "procedures"?

Made by those who they are blowing the whistle on?

I think not.

[Pelican]

21. If they want whistleblower protection...

... then yes. Procedures are in place and he chose not to use them. Pay the price...

Any response to the mass dumping of information that he hadn't even read? (as in it's physically impossible)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. I think the regime and NSA are a lot more worried about it than I am.

[struggle4progress]

23. There's no "they": Manning elected for a trial by judge without jury

[Egalitarian Thug]

25. They're going to name a new federal prison after him because he will

be buried underneath it. Manning is going to continue to be an example just in case any of their other cogs get any feeling of nostalgic patriotism.

[Cleita]

26. Word is that the judge has been offered a nice promotion when this is over, so

I think poor Bradley's ass is fried.

[struggle4progress]

27. ... Schenck said Lind has already been informed that she will take up a new position, as a judge

on the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals, when the Manning trial ends. And she said Lind will not be swayed by the politics of the case. “She’s oblivious to the media,” Schenck said. “She’s not afraid to do the right thing. If the guy was not guilty, she would acquit him.”
In Bradley Manning case, Judge Lind prefers to keep low profile but ruling may have big impact
By Billy Kenber, Published: July 24
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/more-than-bradley-mannings-fate-lies-with-judge-denise-lind-in-case-about-leaking-info/2013/07/24/fb546d14-f496-11e2-aa2e-4088616498b4_story.html

[stevenleser]

31. He's going to spend at least the next 40-60 years in prison. nt

[MineralMan]

34. I imagine guilty on something.

He has already pleaded guilty to some charges.

Penalty, I don't know. That will depend, and probably won't be announced for a while, anyhow.