Free Bradley Manning

[WilliamPitt]

(Photo: thaths)

Free Bradley Manning
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

Tuesday 26 April 2011

It is dangerous to be right in matters on which established authorities are wrong.

- Voltaire

I have a confession to make: I have been on the fence about Bradley Manning as the drama of his detention and the Wikileaks documents have unfolded. While I believe deeply that those who leak classified materials are acting out of conscience and for the good of the people, I also believe criminal acts - even ones of conscience - must be met with punishment as required in any society that wishes to live by the rule of law. Arrest and detention are part of any illegal act of civil disobedience, and are to be expected as the natural consequence of such an act.

Chain yourself to a fence, and expect to be arrested for trespassing. Pour blood on the nose cone of a nuclear missile, and expect to be arrested for destruction of property. The threat of arrest, detention and possible conviction is part of the package that is civil disobedience, and those who take part in it must accept the consequences as part of their act of conscience. Indeed, it is the acceptance of punishment that lies at the heart of that conscience: they are breaking a law to highlight a wrong, are willing to be punished to underscore that wrong, and in doing so, demonstrate how far they are personally willing to go in order to end that wrong and inspire others in the process.

That's where I've been with Bradley Manning - his was an act of conscience that broke the law, and the consequences of that act must be accepted - until now.

How wrong I was.

This situation goes far beyond such a simplistic cut-and-dried viewpoint. It cuts to the core of what we are as a nation, what we wish to be, and what must be done to honor the values we pay so much lip service to, even as we fail time and again to practice what we preach. What Manning has been charged with goes far beyond an act of conscience; they were, in fact, an attempt to save the very soul of these United States.

It is widely considered facile and weak to make Nazi comparisons in any argument, but unfortunately for every citizen of this country, the comparison here is all too apt. During the Nuremberg trials in the aftermath of World War II, accused war criminals were often heard to claim, "I was only following orders," as a means of justifying their savage and barbaric activities. The excuse was rejected out of hand, further enshrining the idea that soldiers and officers are more than mere automatons who are expected only to do as they are told. Criminal acts, even in a military situation, are not to be condoned, coddled or tolerated. Men were hanged by the judges at Nuremberg to emphasize the point.

And here is Bradley Manning, who like every enlisted American soldier, swore an oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against enemies both foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. That same oath requires the oath-taker to follow the orders of the president and superior officers, but if those hanged men at Nuremberg prove anything, it is that unlawful orders are by definition void, and should not be followed if the oath sworn to the Constitution is to mean anything at all.

Make no mistake: the documents Bradley Manning has been accused of leaking are prima facie evidence of illegal orders being given and executed all along the chain of command. This has been made even more abundantly clear with the recent revelation of some 700 pages of documents detailing the ongoing travesty that is America's detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. According to various reports:

The files depict a system often focused less on containing dangerous terrorists or enemy fighters, than on extracting intelligence. Among inmates who proved harmless were an 89-year-old Afghan villager, suffering from senile dementia, and a 14-year-old boy who had been an innocent kidnap victim.

A number of British nationals and residents were held for years even though US authorities knew they were not Taliban or al-Qaida members. One Briton, Jamal al-Harith, was rendered to Guantánamo simply because he had been held in a Taliban prison and was thought to have knowledge of their interrogation techniques. The US military tried to hang on to another Briton, Binyam Mohamed, even after charges had been dropped and evidence emerged he had been tortured.

The files also detail how many innocents or marginal figures swept up by the Guantánamo dragnet because US forces thought they might be of some intelligence value.

One man was transferred to the facility "because he was a mullah, who led prayers at Manu mosque in Kandahar province, Afghanistan ... which placed him in a position to have special knowledge of the Taliban". US authorities eventually released him after more than a year's captivity, deciding he had no intelligence value.

Another prisoner was shipped to the base "because of his general knowledge of activities in the areas of Khowst and Kabul based as a result of his frequent travels through the region as a taxi driver".

The files also reveal that an al-Jazeera journalist was held at Guantánamo for six years, partly in order to be interrogated about the Arabic news network.

Also illuminated in these leaked documents is the shameful use of torture, described through the cruel euphemism of "enhanced interrogation," that was rampant at Guantanamo Bay. Thanks to such disgraceful practices, the prisoners currently detained there now find themselves in a ridiculous legal limbo; they may be innocent or guilty, but because they were tortured, they cannot be brought to trial because evidence obtained against them was gathered illegally. The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before, refuses to let the legal process do its work, nor are they willing to release these prisoners, so there they sit.

In a filthy irony, Bradley Manning was exposed to a number of grotesquely similar "stress tactics" used against Guantanamo prisoners while detained at Quantico. He was deprived of sleep, humiliated and berated by his captors, isolated, exposed to cold, and made to stand naked for extended periods of time. Such acts are straight out of the War on Terror handbook, and like the prisoners at Guantanamo, were used against a man who has yet to be convicted of anything. The mistreatment tactics against prisoners that Manning allegedly exposed have been used against him, one more crime in a symphony of crimes.

Bradley Manning sits today in Leavenworth prison awaiting a hearing to determine whether or not he will face a court martial. The case against him seems as disorganized and specious as the cases against many of the prisoners at Guantanamo, but let us accept for the moment that he did, in fact, release those classified documents. If so, he should be thanked for his actions. As Glenn Greenwald so eloquently argued, "WikiLeaks is responsible for more newsworthy scoops over the last year than all media outlets combined: it's not even a close call. And if Bradley Manning is the leaker, he has done more than any other human being in our lifetime to bring about transparency and shine a light on what military and government power is doing."

Moreover, if there is actually justice to be found in this morally crippled nation, Bradley Manning should be cleared of all charges and released. His was not some casual act of disobedience, nor was it an attack against his country. Bradley Manning was fulfilling the oath he swore to protect and defend the Constitution. He exposed serial criminal acts perpetrated by his superiors, which is a moral necessity for anyone who has taken such an oath.

We know the truth of the acts made by both the Bush and Obama administrations in Guantanamo, and they are illegal on their face. We are a better nation today because we know this, and we have Bradley Manning to thank for it. By exposing war crimes, he has been labeled a criminal even before any hearings have been held. He has been mistreated in a way you would not treat a dog. He showed us the war crimes committed in our name, and has been crushed for it.

Justice demands his release. Furthermore, justice demands a wide inquiry into the criminal acts of both the Bush and Obama administrations as pertaining to the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. Justice demands prosecution for those acts against the real criminals responsible for them. They have driven our nation into the gutter, and to punish Bradley Manning for attempting to haul us back from that abyss is to admit, in broad daylight and with no shame, that justice has no meaning anymore.

http://www.truth-out.org/free-bradley-manning/1303830295

[Electric Monk]

1. k&r nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. K n R

for all the good the 'R' does.

[RandomThoughts]

3. I would not say he is crushed.

Just a guess, he might be saying more weight.

When you are in the right, acts of oppression have no sting.

[Capitalocracy]

149. Great line from the Crucible

:toast:

[ProSense]

4. I agree with PJ Crowley, here

PJ Crowley (March 29):

<...>

To be clear, Private Manning is rightly facing prosecution and, if convicted, should spend a long, long time in prison. Having been deeply engaged in the WikiLeaks issue for many months, I know that the 251,000 diplomatic cables included properly classified information directly connected to our national interest. The release placed the lives of activists around the world at risk.

<...>

Wonder what other prisoners waiting behind bars for a trial think about the attempts to portray Manning as a hero to justify his release? Manning deserves no special treatment.

[WilliamPitt]

5. Copy ---> Paste

Seen this exact post from you before.

Agree to disagree.

[ProSense]

13. "Seen this exact post from you before."

Yes, it's my opinion in agreement with Crowley. It hasn't changed since the last time I posted it.

[Kalun D]

196. So your Spamming then?

[ZombieHorde]

227. It is not spamming if it fits the context of the thread. Otherwise, all of the "K&R" and "+1" would

be spamming as well.

[robinlynne]

212. yep. a deja vu. I recall the same thing.

[Hissyspit]

55. Obama administration position on whistleblowers has been a sham.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

101. Manning didn't follow the whistleblower guidelines i believe, and as such are not covered by em n/t

[Hissyspit]

140. I wasn't talking technicalities.

I was talking integrity.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

141. factual, not technical I believe, point taken tho N/T

[rhett o rick]

168. So when in doubt, trust the oppressors? nm

[Bodhi BloodWave]

269. are you saying all the different instances he could have reported to would have tried to quash it?

[grahamhgreen]

219. According to Nuremberg, the over-arching guideline is our conscience.

[defendandprotect]

230. And it's pitiful that soldiers still don't have that right --- !!

They become sole property of military -- and that has to be changed.

[rhett o rick]

283. They do have that right. It's only the oppressors that say otherwise. nm

[defendandprotect]

292. They have no right to conscience -- except as conscientious objectors --

which would mean going to prison while the war is on --

The right to conscience we are talking about is self-determination on the

battlefield --

Do you rape as a tool of war -- do you torture -- do you "burn the village to save it"?

Do you spread NAPALM over Vietnamese forests?

Do you spread depleted uranium in Iraq?

Do you shoot to kill anything that moves?

These are all things -- and many more -- that soldiers have no way of knowing about until

they are in battle --

It also involves their own bodies - they are unable to refuse vaccinations -- and I imagine

soldiers could add a long list of other concerns. However, a soldier's body becomes

military property.

Males come into war on the premise of serving their country -- defending it against attack.

Often, they find that war is about something other than they were aware.

[PufPuf23]

111. Did Daniel Ellsbergh deserve "special treatment" over the Pentagon Papers

that helped stop the pointless Vietnam War?

Manning is a 21 year old PFC, not much more than a child. Aledgedly (and probably IMO), Manning leaked computer files that expose war crimes and bad faith dealing by the DoS and DoD.

Did Manning have a motive to harm the USA or harm others? I do not believe so. I believe Manning acted in good faith in the only possible manner. Perhaps those who should be prosecuted are Manning's bosses and their bosses and on up the line.

Obviously Manning was not properly vetted nor had the "experience" to have access to the intelligence. There is guilt in the chain of command; double guilt in not properly vetting Manning and covering up breaking of laws, decency, and trust most humane.

I expect to vote for POTUS Obama in 2012.

But POTUS Obama has broken laws with far more consequences than that of Manning and laws that led to hanging at post WWII war crime trials. To start, POTUS Obama did not prosecute even admitted war criminals from GWB et al, so is complicit and has even extended some policies. One can weigh crimes from collateral damage from illegal drone attacks to the possibility that there might be blowback to individuals or institutional embarassment by Manning's alledged leaks.

Prosense lololol Let Chorozon visit you in your dreams.

[defendandprotect]

228. K/R

[eridani]

211. Name an activist n/t

[defendandprotect]

226. Crowley is wrong on that point -- Pitt is correct -- Manning's oath is to Constitution ....

not illegal orders -- !!

Are we going to punish soldiers for following their Constitutional oath now?

[no limit]

239. Great job as usual in not addressing anything in the OP

Were there cables that probably shouldn't have been released? Sure. Was there material released that exposed crimes and cover ups by our government and our military? Abso-fucking-lutely.

Take the example of the collateral murder video where our troops shot up unarmed civilians which killed 8 innocent people and badly injured 2 children. It also showed that our military will happily level entire buildings just because they have a suspicion (based on grainy video from 2 miles away) that an armed men entered that building.

If you saw what Manning saw what would you do with the information?

[Shiver]

6. No thank, I already have one.

:hide:

[WilliamPitt]

7. *spit*

That was nice. :)

[Hissyspit]

78. If we...

can't laugh at political prisoners who give up their freedom for allegedly revealing information that allows wronged people to pursue justice, seek justice and redress and have peace of mind, who can we laugh at? :)

[PBS Poll-435]

8. If he is acquitted at his court martial, then by all means.

If not :(

[KittyWampus]

9. The newest version of "Free Mumia". No Thanks.

[EFerrari]

16. We must not speak of America's poliical prisoners. It's too embarrassing

to the status quo.

[G_j]

43. America has political prisoners?

:sarcasm: :rofl:

[EFerrari]

46. And not only the political class is complicit, but the professional class is, too.

April 26, 2011 4:02 PM

Doctors turned 'blind eye' to Guantanamo torture: Study

WASHINGTON - U.S. Department of Defense doctors and psychologists whose duty was to care for inmates at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, concealed evidence of intentional harm and torture, said a study on Tuesday.

The findings, published in the peer-reviewed journal PloS Medicine, come in the wake of a host of secret U.S. documents released by Wikileaks, shedding light on conditions in the U.S. military prison in Cuba.

Co-authored by a retired army brigadier general and an expert with Physicians for Human Rights, the study is based on the medical records and legal files of nine inmates at the U.S. "war on terror" prison.

The authors call into question whether military doctors, who like their civilian colleagues generally adhere to the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm, should have done more when confronted with potential of abuse or torture.

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Doctors+turned+blind+Guantanamo+torture+Study/4677604/story.html#ixzz1KfDjIyNj

[G_j]

139. I hadn't seen these recent findings,

though we had heard from the beginning it was happening.

It is an absolute tragedy what has happened, the blind eyes are everywhere, even here.



"The authors call into question whether military doctors, who like their civilian colleagues generally adhere to the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm, should have done more when confronted with potential of abuse or torture."



duh???

[defendandprotect]

229. k/r

[Hissyspit]

Leaked Guantanamo Files Highlight Need for Fair Trials and Accountability, Says Amnesty Int'l"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4828284

[Hissyspit]

53. "Gitmo Doctors Hid Evidence of Torture - New Report"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4828292

[Hissyspit]

91. 'Collateral Murder' Veterans Apologize to Iraqi Families

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2010/04/16/collateral-murder-veterans-apologize-to-iraqi-families/

[Name removed]

169. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[readmoreoften]

259. Mumia was a whistleblower on the US murdering civilians and journalists in Iraq.

I did not know that. Huh. Learn something new every day. (Some of us do at least.)

[crickets]

10. Thank you, WilliamPitt, for

clearly outlining some of the reasons why so many of us are upset at Bradley Manning's treatment and concerned that his case (and the cases of others at Guantanamo for that matter) may never receive a fair hearing.

K&R

[upi402]

12. agreed

at this point, with a Harvard lawyer president publicly declaring his guilt when the guy hasn't had a damn trial... yeah, free the guy now before we really sink into the mud of fascism.

[Smarmie Doofus]

22. At this point, it's absolutely impossible for him to get a fair...

... hearing.

The 'case'... such as it was.... is completely tainted by the malevolence and vindictiveness of his persecutors.

As my grandma used to say... "There are none so indignant as the justly accused."

[Bodhi BloodWave]

106. what malevolence and vindictiveness if i may ask? n/t

[upi402]

115. you're kidding right?

it's all over the airwaves, very few brave souls defend him.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

117. well, then it should be no problem answering my question in detail n/t

[Azathoth]

11. So Manning burns down an apartment building and you want to set him free because it turns out

an escaped murderer happened to be hiding out in one of the apartments? That's one hell of a moral leap...

[WilliamPitt]

14. He burned down an apartment building?

[Azathoth]

15. On edit: The logic is identical to yours. (Look up the meaning of strawman by the way.)

On edit: Perhaps I should spell it out for you.

Manning committed a vast crime. He proudly boasted that he had pulled off the biggest security leak in US history. He had no idea precisely what he was leaking, since he never read most of the documents. He only knew that he wanted to hurt the government and he gloated in his chats about the prospect of every single American embassy being rocked by a scandal of some kind. So he indiscriminately downloaded everything he could find and then dumped them all on Wikileaks.

Now you want to free him because a handful of the nearly half million documents he stole have turned out to be important -- documents he never read. Good luck with that bit of moral gymnastics.

[Hissyspit]

72. Actually no, he apparently did talk about the whistleblowing reasons he leaked.

In the alleged chat logs. But you left that part out in your false analogy.


For his part, Manning describes just stumbling upon the Collateral Murder video, did some research into what it was, then stewed on it for a month and a half before forwarding to WL.

(03:07:53 PM) Manning: i watched that video cold, for instance
(03:10:32 PM) Manning: at first glance… it was just a bunch of guys getting shot up by a helicopter… no big deal… about two dozen more where that came from right… but something struck me as odd with the van thing… and also the fact it was being stored in a JAG officer’s directory… so i looked into it… eventually tracked down the date, and then the exact GPS co-ord… and i was like… ok, so thats what happened… cool… then i went to the regular internet… and it was still on my mind… so i typed into goog… the date, and the location… and then i see this http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html
(03:11:07 PM) Manning: i kept that in my mind for weeks… probably a month and a half… before i forwarded it to

[Azathoth]

92. Which is why Wikileaks was able to highlight it immediately

Because it was one of the only legitimate stories that Manning knew about in the nearly half million documents he stole. If he had just leaked that video I doubt we would be having this conversation right now.

[EFerrari]

109. That's right. He only knew the very tip of the iceberg.

And he was right. Thanks to him, there will be a clean up around here because people now have the evidence in hand.

I can see how that would infuriate not only the political class but their ardent supporters.

[sabrina 1]

136. You clearly do not know much about this story.

Manning was concerned mostly about the torture of Iraqi detainees being handed over to the US trained Iraqi police. he reported it, he was ignored, nothing was done.

Have you read any of the Iraq/Afghanistan war logs released by Wikileaks which verify his claims?

If he is the leaker of those War Logs then he did know what he was doing and why.

As for the Embassy Cables, we do not know who released them either.

I think you should go to Glenn Greenwald's blog and read his excellent reporting on this story from the beginning, including the information he found on the Chat Logs where Manning supposedly confessed and it was implied that more was known, and more 'chat' had taken place, than actually did. Thanks to Greenwald's persistence in getting that info, we now know there was nothing more.

Manning is a hero. THose harming this country are the ones exposed in the leaks and of course their commanding officers all the way to the WH. We knew this for years which is why we worked so hard to get rid of Bush. But we've learned from the leaks, the cables and from many other sources, that nothing has changed. The war crimes continue and this administration, as revealed in the Wikileaks documents, not only is continuing Bush criminal policies, but is protecting the Bush war criminals.

But I have faith that justice will be done. There are far too many victims of these crimes to ever be able to just sweep it all under the rug. Each day those victims and their loved ones, along with their lawyers, are working to get justice for them. No matter what happens to Manning, those hundreds of thousands of victims created by the Bush Administration will not be going away, not ever. Someday they WILL receive the justice they deserve.

Those crimes have done so much harm to this country that it may very well be treason. It is not the leaks that caused the harm, it is the crimes which apparently were well known to people around the world, except for the American people.

[readmoreoften]

262. It's not a strawman you committed. It's faulty analogy. But now this post contains strawmen.

But it is so filled with absurd, emotional bombast, that I can see why someone might consider your original argument to be a strawman argument. On the other hand, when you say "he only wanted to hurt the government", now you're running a strawman scam. Presenting a Bradley Manning who only wants to "hurt the government" and has no stronger reasons than this is a textbook case of "strawman fallacy."

Your "argument" is an empty assertion akin to emotional vomit.

[JVS]

100. With that metaphor you win a participation ribbon.

[Azathoth]

114. First metaphor that popped into my mind. I like ribbons. Shiny ones. n/t

[rhett o rick]

170. What an interesting analogy. Our "government" burns down buildings with

woman and children in them to kill a terrorist. Just look at Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. In fact this is the behavior of our government I believe Pvt Manning is trying to expose. So who do you support? The oppressive government that's killing innocent women and children or a human being, trying to stand up for principles and values?

[readmoreoften]

260. That is the worst case of faulty analogy I've ever seen.

[DirkGently]

17. Screams of "traitor" are telltales of fascism. Traitor to what? Inviolable authority? There is none.

[JuniperLea]

21. Screams are irrelevent...

The law was broken, that is where this should start.

[DirkGently]

29. Screamed epithets in place of thought are irrelevant. Which is why fascists love them.

Attempting to narrow the context to the breaking of the law is also a dodge. No ordinary law, no ordinary circumstances. No ordinary results. People who want to discuss rule breaking in a vacuum are making a fascist or authoritarian argument.

In order to reduce Manning's situation to a broken law, or call him a "traitor," you have to ignore a mountain of towering, flaming context.

For example, he's being pursued under a law designed to punish people for sending American military secrets to our enemies to help them in wartime. The fifth person in history so charged.

But you'd have to twist the facts into a bag of doughnuts to say that's the case here. Which Russian agent got the nuclear missile plans?

The counter-argument of course, is that it's not Manning's place to think. He must simply obey. Follow orders ...

Is an immoral order one we want people to follow?

Are matters "classified" to prevent the embarrassment of dishonest government officials to be respected as such? Why?

Getting back to "Traitor" -- this is a loaded term to start with. It implies betrayal. Of whom? For what purpose? To what end? In a vaccuum, using the term (and the inevitable accompanying cries to 'hang 'em!) is nothing more or less than an attempt to cow and threaten people for defying authority in an absolute way. You routed for the wrong team. Wore the wrong color. Shouted the wrong slogan.

Everyone who ever changed anything for the better, ever violated the status quo, ever defied an immoral authority, was a "traitor" in this way.

We should all be this kind of traitor. We must. Want to punish that? Blindly? Based on calls to patriotism and loyalty and lawfullness?

Come and f*cking get us.


edited for: extra treason

[PBS Poll-435]

31. 'Come and f*cking get us.'??? Really?

Congressional Oversight is how you remedy these situations.

FFS.

[DirkGently]

34. And a firm, "No!" Bad Gov't!" "Stop lying!" "Sit!" C'mon. 8)

No. The point here is that the people who make the rules have made it against the rules to make THEM follow the rules.

It's a wee late to shake the finger at someone spilling the beans on them under the theory it semantically fits under a theoretical umbrella under which you could also place actually revealing necessary secrets of some kind.

It's a game, and it's dishonest. Manning hurt no one, and helped many. Equating his actions with being an enemy of America deliberately misinterprets the word "America."

We're better off, by a mile, for what he's done. That actually means something.

[PBS Poll-435]

35. Is that English?

Nearly gave me a migraine.

[DirkGently]

42. Was that an argument? Or just a woefully inadequate attempt at a linguistic put-down?

[PBS Poll-435]

45. I am not even sure myself. I think you spilled something on your keyboard. nt

[DirkGently]

50. Maybe you're just having trouble reading things you disagree with, yet have no answer for?

:D

[Kalun D]

198. Funny

I don't see one word of counter argument from you

[Occulus]

74. How odd; I understood it perfectly.

I've had college-level reading comprehension since middle school, so I'm fairly certain my understanding of his words is accurate.

[bvar22]

249. "Congressional Oversight is how you remedy these situations."

What happens when Congress has FAILS to provide that "oversight",
or Congress is fed false information by those who wish to continue The WAR?

Congress has already admitted that Bush the Lesser and the MIC has mislead them.

[Azathoth]

51. Your post is nearly incoherent

For example, he's being pursued under a law designed to punish people for sending American military secrets to our enemies to help them in wartime. The fifth person in history so charged.
But you'd have to twist the facts into a bag of doughnuts to say that's the case here.

You gotta be fucking kiddin me. We're in one, two, *three* wars right now, and this guy was stealing every classified document he could lay his hands on so that he could disseminate them. That's about as close to "transferring intelligence to the enemy through indirect means" as you can get.

The counter-argument of course, is that it's not Manning's place to think. He must simply obey. Follow orders ...
Is an immoral order one we want people to follow?
Are matters "classified" to prevent the embarrassment of dishonest government officials to be respected as such? Why?

This is just detached ranting that has nothing to do with Manning.

Getting back to "Traitor" -- this is a loaded term to start with. It implies betrayal. Of whom? For what purpose?

Of his military oath and his obligation to follow both civilian and military laws. For what purpose? To stick it to the man.

Everyone who ever changed anything for the better, ever violated the status quo, ever defied an immoral authority, was a "traitor" in this way.

No, only someone who indiscriminately steals classified documents and disseminates them are a "traitor" in this way.

We should all be this kind of traitor.

No thanks.

Come and f*cking get us.

Yeah, smash the system! Down with the man!

[DirkGently]

69. Really? Which harmful secret did Manning deliver to which enemy? Should be easy, right?

And yes, the system which would criminally punish someone for revealing government dishonesty, but not propose to punish the government which committed the dishonesty, needs a bit of smashing. Anyone with the slightest genuine concern for America or Americans would see that.

[Azathoth]

83. Where in the law does it require that the intelligence be "harmful"?

Here is the text directly from the UCMJ:

No unauthorized communication, correspondence, or intercourse with the enemy is permissible. The intent, content, and method of the communication, correspondence, or intercourse are immaterial. No response or receipt by the enemy is required. The offense is complete the moment the communication, correspondence, or intercourse issues from the accused. The communication, correspondence, or intercourse may be conveyed directly or indirectly.

Game over. You lose.

By the way, how do the details of Gaddafi's blonde nurse constitute "government dishonesty"?

[DirkGently]

123. That's not the Espionage Act ("game over," whatever). And misses the point besides

This is the "capital offense" statute under which Manning is charged:

18 U.S.C. § 793 : US Code - Section 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting
the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the
information is to be used to the injury of the United States

So first, yes, intent matters for the most significant charges against Manning. Which seems bad faith on its face, as Wikileaks is hardly out to injure the United States.

Second, the letter-of-the-law argument still misses the point. The man's being treated like Public Enemy No. 1, when he neither intended nor effected any harm to the country. Moreover, the Pentagon and other government officials routinely leak non-lethal information to the press to make a point or embarrass an enemy, and none so far seem to be standing at naked attention awaiting their "capital espionage" trial.

Last, thanks for the point about Ghadafi's nurse. This is the kind of crap attempted to be characterized as aiding the enemy. The burden's on people characterizing this as a heinous "traitorous" act to demonstrate that. If you don't think the diplomatic cables, or the information on the farmers and children locked up in Gitmo is embarrassing to U.S. officials, that completely fine. But it doesn't merit treating Manning like Public Enemy No. 1.

[Azathoth]

133. That's not correct

Manning is active duty military and is being charged under Article 104 of the UCMJ (i.e. "aiding the enemy", the charge to which I was referring). He's also charged with disobeying regulations as well as with a bunch of counts under the general article, which is how the prosecutors are able to charge him under the federal statutes as well.

The burden's on people characterizing this as a heinous "traitorous" act to demonstrate that.

Uh, no. You can shout that all you want, but the UCMJ disagrees with you.

On edit: To be fair, you're not entirely wrong. He *is* also charged under the McCarran Act via the UCMJ general article.

[Phoenix63]

258. Game over?

You just called the American People the Enemy and then finished that off with "I win!"...

LMAO.. seriously?

Mannings oath was to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Not crooked politicians, or the military. The Constitution. The documents he released didn't affect any current operations.

Manning is in jail because he stood up for the people of this country.

Too bad some of the people love their government so much they can't see past it's faults.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Azathoth]

107. And once again we return to our friend, the UCMJ

From the text:

Enemy. “Enemy” includes organized forces of the enemy in time of war, any hostile body that our forces may be opposing, such as a rebellious mob or a band of renegades, and includes civilians as well as members of military organizations. “Enemy” is not restricted to the enemy government or its armed forces. All the citizens of one belligerent are enemies of the government and all the citizens of the other.

Thus your point, while not entirely without merit, is irrelevant to the present discussion. I think we can safely say that our forces are being opposed by more than one hostile body and/or band of renegades.

[rhett o rick]

172. I believe you are making some false assumptions.

you assume that the release of "classified documents" causes damage to our country. But if our "government" uses the classification of documents as a means of hiding their deceit from us, then your assumption is wrong.

You assume that the "classified information" released is useful to our "enemies". The public exposure that our government lies to us and therefore doesnt represent us, is good for our democracy not bad.

You assume our enemies are not our government. The George Bush II reign should have ended that myth.

And no one is saying, "smash the system! Down with the man!" as you hyperbolate. We are saying fix the system, control the man (he works for us). You seem to be saying, "Love the system, love the man" because the man provides security. And security is more important than integrity.

[paulk]

89. +100

[sabrina 1]

199. Excellent post, thank you. And I think we all know that if this

were happening under Bush, not a single person on the left would be trying to make excuses for it or ignoring the war crimes he exposed. I've learned a lot in the past two years about the so-called 'left' these days.

He is a hero. If we are so concerned about the 'law', they why has there been not the slightest interest in the gross violations of the Constitution and of international law exposed in those leaks?

It is NOT the law anyone is worried about, that is clear from the total lack of interest in prosecuting the murderers and torturers that this administration has decided should be protected. The problem appears to be party politics, the very worst and most despicable reason for ignoring murder and torture.

[Occulus]

68. Your words are in the wrong order

"Was the law broken,..."

Fixed.

[JuniperLea]

257. You are right...

We don't know if the law was broken or not. We don't know if there was a crime to blow the whistle on, but we do know that releasing such documents is indeed a crime UNLESS it's a whistle blow on another... and we don't know if that is the case or not either. This entire argument is subjective.

[SlimJimmy]

73. Agreed. If Manning had read and screened every document

before he dumped them, then I might be inclined to say he was a whistle blower and prisoner of conscience. But that's not even remotely the case.

[DirkGently]

80. Nor is the case that he sold sensitive secrets to enemy agents.

... which is what the cries of "traitor" want to imply.

Leaks to journalists are not generally prosecuted. Does WikiLeaks qualify? That might be worthy of discussion.

This is a unique case. But it most certainly does not qualify as espionage, or an attack of any kind on the interests of the American people.

It's the interests of the American government which were insulted here, and apparently that kind of thing must be crushed emphatically, moreso than the dozens of routine leaks to press the Pentagon perfoms as a matter of course, apparently.

[SlimJimmy]

144. I don't believe he's a traitor. He's a person who purpetrated

a very serious crime. Bottom line. He will be prosecuted for it. And all the debate about whether he is a hero, or a bum will not really matter.

[xocet]

184. "...purpetrated (sic)....": Maybe, he "purpletrated" it, too - whatever that means....

These debates matter. War crimes should be prosecuted. After all, President Obama - just the other day when he declared that Pvt. Manning is guilty of breaking the law - affirmed that the USA is "...a nation of laws."

(Note to President Obama: You had best get around to prosecuting President Bush and his administration lest you start to look like quite a hypocrite.)

[SlimJimmy]

186. You got me; I perpetrated a grammar crime. Do you have anything else of

value to add?

[xocet]

194. Sure. FYI: Your misspelling of perpetrate is not a grammar crime; it is a crime of orthography.

The rest of my post regarding the importance of these debates and the status of the USA as "a nation of laws" addresses your question.

[SlimJimmy]

220. Whatever. This conversation is over. Take your spelling Nazi shit elsewhere.

[xocet]

223. It is not my fault that your lack of precision in thinking is reflected in your writing. (Read on.)

It is also not my fault that you are so touchy about having mistakes pointed out.

In spite of the fact that you apparently do not read past the subject line, I will pointlessly restate my message here for the sake of completeness:

The debate on whether the previous administration should be given a free pass on war crimes is important. Evidence of such crimes is important. Bradley Manning may have been instrumental in getting such information out to the world. The debate regarding Bradley Manning is important notwithstanding your stunningly brilliant summary commentary regarding the "Bottom line."

Lastly, here is a correction to a mistake that I made: one should substitute PFC Manning for PVT Manning above. I admit my mistakes freely and welcome correction without avoiding the main point of discussion as you have done in your previous two responses.

[SlimJimmy]

244. And it's not my fault that of the hundreds of posts I've made, you happen to pounce on a

simple spelling error. I could spend my entire day doing that here at DU, but my ego doesn't need it. Your mileage may vary.

[xocet]

288. Your analysis of Bradley Manning's situation leaves a lot to be desired.

"He's a person who purpetrated (sic) a very serious crime."

// Allegedly


"Bottom line."

// This is an excellent example of emphatic reasoning. It is similar to using 1!!1!!! to defend a point.


"He will be prosecuted for it."

// Very likely true, but it does not seem to have happened yet. It seems that there is a prolonged detention phase.
// Maybe he should be held at some black site until some additional evidence can be accumulated.
// For that matter, why is waterboarding off the table? It could be useful in getting that additional evidence. What say you?


"And all the debate about whether he is a hero, or a bum will not really matter."

// Far enough in the future, it may not matter, but that is not true at present.
// Evidence of war crimes has been brought to light unless willfully killing civilians is not a war crime in your estimation.

In summary, the debate over the conditions of PFC Manning's detention is important if one thinks that prosecution of war crimes is important. Your initial argument with or without its accompanying orthographical error is invalid; this has always been my point. You have ignored this consistently in your several responses. I suppose that war crimes are just fine by you.

-----------------------------

Let's examine your few postings in a cursory fashion:

144. shoddy reasoning - poor spelling.
186. dismissal of my counterargument - failure to distinguish between grammar and orthography.
220. repeated dismissal of my original counterargument - summary declaration of end of conversation - parting Nazi reference as an ad hominem
244. repeated dismissal of my original counterargument - parting ego-related ad hominem

So, you failed to defend your original summary judgment in any of your replies and distanced yourself further and further from rational argumentation.

(At this point, a well-known scene from "Billy Madison" comes to mind.)

[markpkessinger]

94. A fair trial with a presumption of innocence is where this should start n/t

[Smarmie Doofus]

18. K and R *Totally.* nt

[G_j]

19. Bravo

:applause:

[JuniperLea]

20. Throwing out the law and the punishment begs for more law breaking...

First things first. The military doesn't operate under the same laws as civilians. The law was broken and there must be a trial and a punishment. Once that case is closed, move on to the rest. Anything else just muddies the waters.

[WilliamPitt]

25. I made my argument.

"Support, protect and defend the Constitution" has to mean something, or else they should just hand every enlisted soldier a Happy Meal and a quart of oil, and send them on their way. Nuremberg has to mean something.

I hope it does, and so we must agree to disagree. :toast:

[SlimJimmy]

77. And this means something as well ...

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

[WilliamPitt]

82. How can exposing a crime be a crime?

Isn't the "safety and interest of the United States" best defended by exposing rampant criminal activity?

Or is keeping secrets our best bet?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

110. agreed, it is best served by that, its not best served with downloading a ton of random classified

files and releasing it to a foreign entity tho, rather then follow the proper whistleblower guidelines of who to inform et al

[WilliamPitt]

120. Democracy is messy

Always has been, always will be.

Beats the alternative, right?

The "guidelines" you speak of were put in place by people and a system dedicated to thwarting such revelations. I'm not inclined to follow their rules, especially when I know for a stone fact that those rules are covering up murder, torture, kidnapping and grand theft.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

122. so why are so many stating he isn't getting the protection whistleblowers deserve when he isn't

following the bloody guidelines to be one. It doesn't really make much sense to demand he get protection for NOT following the guidelines to be one

[WilliamPitt]

127. I consider this to be a unique case.

Much like the Pentagon Papers were and remain a unique case.

Whistleblowing by a civilian on corporate/business malfeasance is one thing.

Soldiers and ranking officials who whistleblow have far fewer protections than a civilian, despite (or because of) the fact that they tend to have far greater access to material worthy of exposure.

The man has shown us what has been happening in our name and with our trillions of tax dollars. It is a national issue that has been exposed. Blowing him up is the ultimate refusal to face what we have done and have become.

Hundreds of thousands dead. Torture. Rape. Kidnapping.

vs.

Release of confidential documents.

Whence comes real justice?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

130. I do laud him for the release of the crimes, since i have no trouble with that in the slightest

It takes courage to do that, even if i think he should have followed the proper guidelines. the main reason i support a trial of him is the vast majority of other classified information that has nothing to do with criminal activity that he downloaded and sent off to wikileaks along with that.

[WilliamPitt]

131. ?

"agreed, it is best served by that, its not best served with downloading a ton of random classified files and releasing it to a foreign entity tho"...

Not sure where you stand, friend.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

134. it says the same thing

The united states is best served by the revelation of criminal acts et al that the united states have done, but its not best served by somebody downloading a ton of classified information(the vast majority not having anything to do with crimes) and being sent off to a foreign entity.

Fairly straightforward isn't it?

Manning can be lauded for the revelation of criminal acts while also being condemned for releasing a ton of confidential information that had nothing to do with criminal acts et al

[SlimJimmy]

147. Not everything he dumped exposed a crime. Not even a little bit close.

So, even if I was willing to give him a pass on the material that exposed criminal activity, he still doesn't get a pass for the deliberate unfiltered data dump of the other thousands or even tens of thousands of documents. Documents that exposed the US and its allies to an unwarranted, unnecessary, and illegal leak of classified material.

[JuniperLea]

152. The contents of the documents mean nothing...

The fact that he passed them along to someone without clearance to see them is everything. This is military law and has zero do to with the Constitution.

[liberation]

182. " This is military law and has zero do to with the Constitution."

LOL, you have no clue have you?

[JuniperLea]

248. Your pathetic attempt at insult is more telling of you than of me...

Have you ever read a military oath? I thought not.

[JuniperLea]

252. Did he expose a crime?

The last time I checked the jury is still out on that.

[sinkingfeeling]

256. +1

[Duval]

95. Agree,

and, once again a superlative post from WRP!:toast: :hi: :thumbsup: :kick: :hug:

[JuniperLea]

250. You knew what I was referring too...

The military has their own code, their own oath, their own laws, and their own punishments.

And just because you feel you are exercising your right to blow the whistle on someone doesn't automatically absolve you from your own crime. That's not to say he won't be found not guilty by virtue of his being correct in blowing the whistle, but we don't know that he was correct, do we?

[EFerrari]

27. Yes, first things firist. First let's prosecute the architects

of the worldwide torture program that Manning helped uncover.

Then let's prosecute those that sought to keep that knowledge from the American public.

Very far down the line, we'd get to Bradley Manning.

[Solly Mack]

38. +1

[DirkGently]

65. I think the entire point is to avoid doing that very thing. What forest? Look at this tree!

[DirkGently]

56. First things first. The Constitution applies to everyone. No punishment before conviction. Next,

we can move on prosecutorial abuse for charging Manning with espionage, which is for spies who give bomb plans to the enemy.

Next, no one's been convicted of anything, so we don't know whether any "punishment" is valid or not.

Next, we can talk about hypocritical and selective enforcement based on rather obvious political bias. Non-lethal "leaks" pour out of Washington like water over Niagra. Mostly from generals, Congresspersons, and White House staff.

If leaking "classified" documents is the same as aiding the enemy, a lot of people in the Pentagon, Congress, and various White House administrations need to be stripped naked and declared traitors immediately.

Next we can talk about false arguments of scale. Manning released a lot of documents. That doesn't make this "the largest case of espionage (sic) in history!" He didn't give out plans for the Bomb or send Al Quaida directions to the White House.

[JuniperLea]

150. No, it doesn't

Government Issue is what soldiers are... they are not citizens, they belong to the government. Manning released documents after swearing not to... he broke military law and there's nothing in the Constitution to keep the military from tryin him UNDER THEIR OWN LAWS and punishing him. It doesn't matter one little bit what those documents contained... not one little bit. The contents have nothing to do with this.

[KoKo]

161. You: " Government Issue is what soldiers are, they are not citizens, they belong to the government"

That's quite amazing ...what you say. You think American military are "not citizens, they belong to the government."

I hope you posted that in a rush and are coming back to edit it...because it's so creepy I'm having a hard time dealing with what you say.

JuniperLea...if you truly believe what you say... Then...you are a frightening person!

[JuniperLea]

245. That's interesting...

Because every single person I've ever known who is in the military says exactly the same thing. My cousins currently serving in Iraq and Afganistan included.

[rhett o rick]

178. This is a typical authoritarian stance. Do you think we are at war? If so, with who?

The only wars we have been in since WW II have been the war on poverty, drugs, and terror. This isnt enough excuse to take away Constitutional rights from an American citizen, even if cajoled.

I am disappointed that you would chose to side with the authoritarians.

[JuniperLea]

246. You don't need to be in a war to adhere to military law...

When you enlist, you take an oath. When you break that oath, you are punished by the military. This is all spelled out to anyone who enlists. I'm not sure where the disconnect is.

[rhett o rick]

280. The disconnect is that you cant "oath" away Constitutional rights. We live in America.

Where do you think we live?

[riderinthestorm]

183. GI = Govt Issue is an old tale from WWI. It has no basis in legal fact.

Soldiers do NOT "belong" to the government. They are citizens of the US.

That said, when a soldier signs that contract they are agreeing to be adjudicated under military law and not civilian law.

Military law says that if a war crime is being committed, a soldier is duty bound to report it. Manning did try to report US war crimes to his superiors and was rebuffed. He then went outside the chain of command.

We don't know much of the facts after that. Did he give Wikileaks the tape of the helicopter massacre only?(which he has admitted doing, and which was clearly a war crime). Did he also release the embassy cables?(nobody knows). His oath as a soldier meant he may have thought he was doing the right thing by getting the info out about the helicopter massacre of civilians.

The contents have everything to do with this. If he was trying to expose or prevent further war crimes (from Gitmo torture to the willful massacre of civilians by US service personnel), then he was simply upholding his oath.

The point is, we don't yet know. I would stipulate that Obama, as Manning's CIC, and the CIC of every judge, prosecutor, defender and jury member, already ruling that Manning is guilty undermines any chance of a fair trial.

And regardless of whether we agree or disagree on what he's done is good or bad, I hope we can agree that he deserves a fair trial.

[JuniperLea]

247. Just because someone reports what they feel is a crime...

Doesn't give them automatic immunity to the punishment for their own.

Quoting you: "We don't know much of the facts after that."

Exactly. Making all the rest of this nonsense just subjective nonsense.

[KoKo]

274. Well, indeed what you say get's scarier and scarier...I think you live on a New Paradigm..not mine

or many others. Maybe what you are living with will prevail. I hope not, though. :-(

[rhett o rick]

281. People that think like you scare me much more than those that we recognize as being on the right

wing. We are at war with the authoritarians, and you choose their side.

[JuniperLea]

255. The contents of the documents mean nothing...

The fact that he released them is the crime. It is yet to be determined if his whistle blowing was valid either. We really know nothing more... but go ahead and keep making shit up.

[KoKo]

275. Well you are digging a hole so deep that it's gone way below..some of us want to even answer you.

:scared:...There's some stuff you are putting out here that is quite an anathema to Democratic Principles.

Do you HEAR or READ YOURSELF? Do You?

[Hissyspit]

84. "Throwing out the law and the punishment begs for more law breaking..."

Might want to drop the President a line about that...

[JuniperLea]

254. Actually, that was one of the first things I did when he put up his comments request...

Then I listened to the logic that had BushCo been held to the law, that is all we would have accomplished since Obama was elected. Congress would have been so tied in knots there would be time for nothing else.

[KoKo]

276. Well...Juniper...you got your answer from Obama...sadly, it doesn't satisfy many of the rest of us..

:shrug:

[rhett o rick]

174. So are you saying that it's ok with you for someone in the military to sign away their

Constitutional rights? How about a corporate employee? Is it ok for anyone to force, trick or cajole a citizen to sign away their Constitutional rights?

[liberation]

177. Isn't it ironic that those so enamored with following the "law" do not really know much about it

The US constitution is still the law of the land.

And the US government still has to provide speedy and fair trials, and it still can provide cruel and unusual punishment to its citizens wether they are wearing green, kaki, or a neon pink skirt and furry boots.

[rhett o rick]

179. I think we have gotten a long way away from the rule of law and the rule of the Constitution. nm

[liberation]

181. Absolutely

I think it is ironic that those who are railing against Manning are basically advocating that it is OK for the US government to not only apply the rule of law arbitrarily but also break the law whenever it is convenient, the little people however have to abide by the law strictly or else.

If Manning has to be tried for a possible crime, so do the cabinet of the previous administration who actually ousted an active intelligence group and compromised far more lives and information. Never mind that a lot of the previous and current administration officials should also be on trial for being responsible of crimes against humanity (you know the stuff we made criminal during Nuremberg and stuff). Alas...

[defendandprotect]

234. +1000%

[JuniperLea]

253. That wasn't even a good straw man...

The two situations are in no way similar in the slightest.

[rhett o rick]

282. I am asking you a straight out question. Do you think the military can legitimately ask someone to

sign away their Constitutional rights?

[SlimJimmy]

272. Everyone in the military "signs away" certain constitutional rights and agrees

to be governed by military law. There is no debate about that, it's a fact.

[rhett o rick]

293. I know fully well what the fact is. I dont believe the military can make you sign away your rights.

The Constitution allows such only for a time of war. If the military can then why cant Halliburton.

[SlimJimmy]

298. The military can and does limit 1st amendment rights. That is acknowledged when

a person signs on the dotted line. That *is* a fact.

[rhett o rick]

299. The fact that they do it doesnt mean it's legal per the Constitution. Of course they do it because

they can. Do you think that citizens can sign away their Constitutional rights? If so, what would be the limitations?

[SlimJimmy]

300. Of course it is. The Congress has the Constitutional perview to regulate the armed forces.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

You said it's not legal per the Constitution. Are you sure you've actually read it?

[liberation]

176. Jawohl!!!

Does my goose-step make me look fat?

[xocet]

191. Rather....

There must be a trial or some form of relevant legal process to determine guilt. Punishment is not mandatory if the verdict is 'not guilty', right?

[JuniperLea]

251. The military has the right to hold them until there is a determination...

We have no clue where they are in the investigation, or if the whistle was appropriately blown. All the rest of this is pure subjection.

[xocet]

287. So you do admit that your statement is incorrect? Minimally, punishment is not mandatory.

"The law was broken and there must be a trial and a punishment."
--JuniperLea

[readmoreoften]

263. The military also has trials, genius, and there haven't been any.

:eyes:

[EFerrari]

23. Bradley Manning cannot get a fair trial.

Who knows what they've already done to his mind. Or to any witnesses who were willing to testify on his behalf. Our Attorney General announced he was going to look for a crime to charge Assange with, which is illegal. And the President has already declared Manning guilty.

There is no way Brad Manning can get a fair trial under this administration. It's not going to happen. He has to be freed.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

112. well considering the delay has been because of a defense requested mental evaluation

the mind aspect of your comment should be in the clear. And i see no problem in Obama giving his opinion of what Manning did, it was kinda a given in all cases since the government filed the charges in the first place(I'd be a lot more worried if Obama WASN'T of the opinion he had broken the law and was filing the charges, wouldn't you?)

[EFerrari]

119. Prisoner abuse is illegal. And no, Obama's opinion has nothing to do with

due process in any way.

You'd think someone who sells himself as some kind of Constitutional law scholar would know better than to talk about active cases on camera. lol

[Bodhi BloodWave]

124. you'd think even a president would have the first amendment right to speak his own opinion

and i am not aware of any prisoner abuse, i'm aware of the charges and claims, but i've yet to see any proof of it.

Admittedly it might not be the wisest of actions for him to give his opinions at times, but i see nothing wrong in it

[EFerrari]

132. Every major human rights organization on the planet

has protested Bradley Manning's conditions and asked for an investigation or review.

And yes, officers of the court or interested parties are not to discuss active cases. They can be cited for contempt of court.

[Kalun D]

200. Step Back and Check Yourself

First of all you are defending a bunch of garbage that started with the bush boy.

That's what Manning was trying to uncover. The only thing he's admitted to is the release of the chopper gunship tape, the rest is pure speculation, you know like Nancy Grace, communist countries, and the bush boy, guilty till proven innocent.

Solitary confinement by itself is torture, try is sometime, see how long you last. They've also been holding him naked. It's been a year now without trial. You'd think if they had a clear case it would have at least started by now, apparently they don't, no big surprise there.

Apparently Obama did see something wrong with declaring someone guilty before trial because he retracted the next day. Your opinion is more in line with something bush would do, he never retracted anything.

[Gregorian]

24. I had to check in order to confirm that I was still on Democratic Underground.

Responses to your post are disheartening. For if people on this forum cannot see the truth, then this hero of a man may have done nothing. He didn't rob a bank. He exposed those who did rob the bank. Unfortunately they have him as a captive now. And the media hype, or lack thereof, justifies what has been done with and to him.

It's hard to know what to say, because simple words won't work. Was the attack on the Trade Center part of something sinister on the behalf of those in office? We know from three weapons inspectors that there were no wmd's, nor any reason to even invade Iraq. A CIA officer was revealed, with essentially no accountability. The list is as long as the days we've been posting on this forum. The revelations of the PNAC discovery back in the early part of the last administration. The attempts to unravel and decode the craziness that was going on, that no media reported on.

And one man comes along and sees evidence of the crimes. And now he is considered a criminal. Well just who is in charge? The question of who is in the driver's seat of America becomes crucial. Because if this man is a criminal, then those in charge must be hiding something. Which makes them even worse than what they charge Manning of doing.

[WilliamPitt]

26. +1

Thanks.

[PBS Poll-435]

32. After reading the list of folks arrested and charged by these dramatic "leaks", I am just so tired

Wait. Not a GD thing happened to anyone or is going to.

Still waiting for the Bank of America arrests. (It is nearly May.) :)

[EFerrari]

54. If the system was working and people like Rumsfeld and Yoo were being arrested

we wouldn't need Wikileaks. That's an argument for Manning, not against him.

[Hissyspit]

96. Of course things have happened.

The truth and transparency make a difference. You seem to not value it or resent it.

The expexcted Bank of America leak has nothing at all to do with the OP. I mean, really, good lord.

[bahrbearian]

37. Yes Yes..

[JVS]

104. It's fucked up.

[WilliamPitt]

143. +1

Says it all.

Hello, old friend.

:hug:

[KoKo]

277. EVERYTHING IS FUCKED UP...and DAY BY DAY...it get's worse...Shout it Out!

"forgive me"....I had to blow off steam...shouting at folks.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

116. I laud Manning for revealing the war crimes and other criminal acts, I consider him a criminal for

having released a ton of classified information that did NOT involve any criminal activity. Now had Manning followed the whistleblower guidelines rather then releasing the information to a foreign entity then I think he would be in a very different position

[Gregorian]

167. That's an interesting problem.

I'm not up on that aspect. There's a good chance he was simply a messenger. How could he have possibly known all that was in those documents. But it's a good point.

[Capitalocracy]

151. He's been charged with "aiding the enemy". The enemy is US.

Assuming he is the one who did this, he did it to help the American people and our democracy. He exposed illegal acts which were illegally covered up; this is NOT a crime by any legal standard. But instead of treating him like a hero, they are going to kill him. Their plan in including that charge is to make execution a possible punishment. But if he is aiding the enemy, then we the people are the enemy of the state.

[Raksha]

208. Exactly! The enemy is US. No other possible conclusion.

[tiny elvis]

221. there are really very few posters supporting the lynching

count them
you will not run out of fingers

[defendandprotect]

232. You can see that those posting with negative responses ...

are those with a lot of emotional investment in authority --

that's what they've been taught and they still believe it works!!

When things get more complicated -- as Wm. Pitt is outlining --

then they are lost.

[readmoreoften]

264. Jackboot thugs with a (D) behind their names are as much my enemies as jackboot thugs with an (R)

+1

[Erose999]

28. Rec'd. Bradley Manning is "A Real American Hero" as they say.

[defendandprotect]

233. +1000% -- Secrecy is the enemy of democracy and people's government -- !!

[Solly Mack]

30. K&R

[mmonk]

33. It's breaking the law to reveal classified information of law breaking.

Orwellian USA 101

[PBS Poll-435]

36. It is really not a good idea to steal data and ship it overseas via the intertubes.

(And then brag about it)

If Manning had concerns about what he had seen, he should have gone to a supervising Officer.

[bahrbearian]

39. Going to your supervisor is working so well right now.

[PBS Poll-435]

41. Well, you kind of eliminate "whistle-blowing" when you don't do "due diligence"

Just sayin'.

[bahrbearian]

48. He never would have been able to blow the whistle if he went to his Superiors

Just sayin

[PBS Poll-435]

49. A superior. Someone trusted. Makes a much stronger case.

Then somebody that steals info and sends it to Europe.

And I must be looking at the wrong police blotter, because I can't find anyone in trouble because of the 'leaks'.

[liberation]

173. Damn right! he should have filed the long form W-323AB-2 for whistleblowing application

Make three copies and submit it, and then get the WF-563 for pre whistle approval.

And then right after that, he should have applied for whistling school, and pass the final exam with a minimum of 90% grade.

Then after he has submitted a couple of articles on the matter for peer review he should have then filled the KMA-687-EZ blowing application.


I hate when good germ... I mean Americans don't follow proper procedure too!

[mmonk]

44. I don't think anythng I said was inappropriate.

He should be treated as lightly as Scooter Libby. Or really vice versa.

[PBS Poll-435]

47. What rank is ol' Scooter?

And he should probably be treated more like Martha Stewart.

[EFerrari]

60. He did. He as told to shut up. n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

105. Your nostrum is laughable in its naievete. A little history lesson:

Daniel Ellsburg took the Pentagon Papers to several senators first before leaking to the NY Times and other print media. That did not stop Nixon from marshalling the entire force of the U.S. Justice Department and extra-legal forces against Ellsburg. And you would have had Manning go to a superior officer? Which one, like Colin Powell? Give me a friggin' break.

[elias49]

156. +1

[PBS Poll-435]

158. That crazy, crazy foreign entity, that Old Grey Lady. nt

[Scuba]

40. Manning is a patriot and a hero. He should be decorated for his courageous actions. nt/

[Sky Masterson]

52. And all who had the ability to leak this information but didn't are traitors

and cowards and should be ashamed!! They could have been as brave as this single soldier and decided unilaterally to give these documents using their own judgment to a foreign civilian. But they didn't.. The entirety of the Military who had access to this information and didn't go against their oath and spread the info abroad are traitors and scum!! Give Manning a Medal and prosecute the other silent cowards!!

[EFerrari]

57. One thing for sure, none of us should ever ask again

how an entire country can sit back and let atrocities happen because that's exactly what we did, are doing now.

[PBS Poll-435]

58. How dare you wikileak on the Church of St. Manning! Blasphemy!

He is a hero!

I can't really explain why, but that is what 'edit' is for.

[Hissyspit]

63. It's not that he's making the argument.

It's that the argument is false.

[Sky Masterson]

71. A fake argument?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTl9zYS3_dc&feature=fvst
:P

[Scuba]

59. "The entirety of the Military who had access to this information and didn't go against their oath ".

Manning did not "go against his oath".

Manning took an oath to uphold the constitution. Manning took an oath to never obey an illegal order.


Ordering war crimes to be covered up is an illegal order. End of discussion.

[Sky Masterson]

66. My argument is that he didn't selectively pick an issue and grab info to release

on that issue.He grabbed a shit-load of documents and released them all.
What is it about a broad dump of documents that jive with an illegal order? He wasn't asked to shoot women and children..

[Scuba]

70. Covering up a crime would be illegal. The documents were evidence of crimes....

...see how simple that is?

[Sky Masterson]

75. All of them?

Who made Bradley Manning Judge and Jury..

[Scuba]

76. You're grasping at straws. n/t

[Sky Masterson]

79. Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm just stupid. Forgive me. :sarcasm:

[Scuba]

85. You're forgiven.

[Sky Masterson]

90. Awesome!!!

Woot!! BTW.. I disagree with people but I don't hate those with other opinions about issues than I(At least on the left) ;) Your opinions and views are as valuable as mine.
Just forgive me if I'm so selfish that I value mine more. :D

[Scuba]

97. Yeah, me too. I respect your opinion and especially your right....

...to voice it.

During my six years of military service I also saw crimes covered up by the higher-higher. I was a coward and said nothing.

I admire Manning, and think he did right. If he released some things not related to war crimes, I'll forgive him that in exchange for exposing our wrongdoings.


Only by shining a light on our crimes and punishing the guilty will be ever be able to claim any moral high ground on the world stage, let alone sense of morality at home.

[Sky Masterson]

103. I thank you for your service!

And I tip my fedora to you for doing it. :applause: :)

[Hissyspit]

61. That's utter nonsense.

Try something else. Or don't.

[Sky Masterson]

67. Not really

But the defense of this act is IMHO.

[Azathoth]

64. Sadly, your sarcasm is so on-target that I fear you will be taken seriously n/t

[sudopod]

62. :) nt

[tritsofme]

81. I have impeccable sources that tell me his release is imminent...

In the next 24 business hours. Stay tuned!

[Hissyspit]

88. And that has what to do with the OP?

Not a damn thing.

[tritsofme]

129. You will find out in 24 business hours.

;)

[Hissyspit]

138. Continues to be irrelevant.

[tritsofme]

153. The OP?

Agreed.

[Hissyspit]

154. Respond to his arguments or you just look foolish.

Or at the very least off-topic and thread-jacking. I'm actually really trying to think of why your post would reasonably pertain to the OP beyond a "someone was wrong in a particular instance therefore they are always wrong" fallacy, and I can't come up with anything.

[tritsofme]

163. This is just not a person I take seriously.

Zero credibility.

[Hissyspit]

189. Ah. You can't respond to his arguments.

And the idea that he has zero credibility is ridiculous. There is stuff I disagreed with him about, there are things he has done that have been wrong, and there's plenty of stuff where he was spot on. That does not equal zero.

[rhett o rick]

284. Well, so much for that. I didnt find out shit. nm

[tritsofme]

286. Well duh. Only 8 business hours have elapsed since that post. nt

[rhett o rick]

290. Oh you meant three days. Clever. My mistake. nm

[Codeine]

135. *snort*

:spray: :rofl:

[Hissyspit]

137. Irrelevant.

And not particularly funny, either.

[Zorra]

86. Bravo! This is the essence of the situation. nt

[bvar22]

87. God Forbid that Americans should find out what our government...

...is doing in our name.

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government;
whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right."---Jefferson


If Manning is a "traitor",
then I am also a "traitor" in spirit.

K&R

[Ichingcarpenter]

93. Until War Crimes are rightfully addressed by this nation he is a hero

I hated the brutality, the sadism, and the insanity of _______ I just couldn't stand by and see people destroyed. I did what I could, what I had to do, what my conscience told me I must do. That's all there is to it. Really, nothing more.

I was now resolved to do everything in my power to defeat the system.

Oskar Schindler




He broke the law too BTW and was a traitor to the State.

I think the OP is right on.

[Zorra]

213. +1...will they say this man is a criminal as well?

After all, he did break the law; and the law is the law.

Every Good Ger, er...Good American knows this.

[rhett o rick]

294. .

[me b zola]

99. K&R

[white_wolf]

102. This whole Manning situation is bullshit!

He should be given a damn medal for what he did. You know who should be in prison, though? Every single person who committed,helped cover up, or in any way aided in the carrying out of the crimes Manning revealed. That includes this administration, if they knew what was happening and did nothing or even worse ordered it, than they are as guilt as the previous administration.

[bluestate10]

108. Take Manning to Court Martial immediately and let evidence free him, if it does. nt

[Hissyspit]

113. It's not just about evidence.

It's about the larger issues, as evident by this thread. Even if he technically violated code or broke law, was it justified. (See Daniel Ellsberg and ten years of lies about Vietnam (and resultant deaths) from the government.)

He will not get a fair hearing. He is a pawn.

[Robb]

118. "He will not get a fair hearing." OK.

You've got a self-fulfilling prophesy, of sorts. Common wisdom is that Manning's very, very likely to be convicted. And Manning's supporters have set the conviction up as proof of a corrupt system.

You've got a powerful weapon to wield. The inevitable will occur, and you can point at it and claim moral victory.

How will you use that?

[EFerrari]

121. "Common wisdom is that Manning's very, very likely to be convicted."

Exactly. In the climate created by this administration, Manning has already been convicted in public opinion.

That should be repugnant to anyone with the slightest interest in justice.

[in_cog_ni_to]

142. Right! Obama declared him GUILTY just last week.

The man doesn't have a chance in hell in court. If he's not dead before he makes it to court. He may shoot himself in the back before he gets there. :grr:

I's unconscionable that people on this board are defending Obama. IMO, he's now joined the ranks of Bush and Cheney.

[KoKo]

171. Exactly...when a President calls you Guilty before Trial...he's predjudiced a "Fair Trial !

Obama should have shut his mouth and left it up to that weeny ass Eric Holder to do his dirty work for him.

Now...he's put his foot in it!

[Robb]

192. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it didn't work for Manson.

Manson, who was in the news again this week, I'd add.

[riderinthestorm]

201. But Obama is Manning's boss, and the boss of everyone involved in the trial

unlike Nixon and Manson, yet Nixon was immediately informed by his legal team to withdraw his comments (which he did).

Obama has similarly retracted his comments. What do we make of that? (imho, it means Obama and his legal team understand he's made an error).

But it appears that Obama as the CIC has a much greater influence and stake in THIS trial than Nixon did with Manson. Obama's proclamation that Manning is already guilty as a treasonous traitor before he goes up on trial before a jury of his peers (under Obama's command as a superior officer), with a judge (who also is subordinate to Obama as a superior officer) means imho, that this is a far different trial than Nixon's impact on Manson's trial.

[SlimJimmy]

155. That was the "common wisdom" of those learning of the Boston Massacre as well.

I think we all know how that turned out. To quote John Adams from his summation at trial - "I will enlarge no more on the evidence, but submit it to you - Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

[Robb]

193. In what climate would you expect otherwise?

There is no one on this board, much less in this thread, who hasn't "convicted" an untried person at least once.

Unless you're going to blame human nature on this administration, which is a bit of a stretch. :shrug:

[Hissyspit]

125. That's not what I did at all. Manning's conviction

will not in and of itself be proof of a corrupt system. The corrupt system continues to reveal itself. I make no claims to moral victory no matter what happens. If he does indeed get a fair hearing, which seems near impossible to me, I will gladly concede the fact. The basic truth of the matter is that there is most likely way too much at stake. (I grant that I could have said "most likely will not get a fair hearing.")

[Robb]

195. Fair enough. But surely you see something to be gained here? (nt)

[riderinthestorm]

203. I believe that what will be gained is that the power of TPTB is re-emphasized.

Trivialize that as you will, but WHEN Manning is convicted via a show trial of the most monstrous proportions, what will be gained is that the underlings (like in the Guantanamo Bay torture photos) will pay with years, decades in jail, while the ones who have authorized and administered illegal death and destruction will revel in years, decades of luxury and political prominence.

I only see the PTB "gaining" while the whistleblowers and peons are subjected to courts martial and prison. Are they guilty? Perhaps of being pawns. Is Manning guilty? A pawn who decided to stop being a pawn of the military industrial complex, and instead expose crimes of humanity?

By his oath as a soldier, I believe that verdict is far from black and white.

[rhett o rick]

285. Until Cheney is tried, Manning should be freed. nm

[Ignis]

126. K&R.

Thanks for chiming in on this...and for coming down on the right side of the issue, after careful consideration. :thumbsup:

[NorthCarolina]

128. K&R

[styersc]

145. Manning deserves the right to mount a defense in a court of law.

No more but certainly no less. If he is acquitted, release him. If he is convicted then give him time.

[Canuckistanian]

164. I think he should be tried in a civilian court

The ramifications of his actions go FAR beyond mere military crimes.

Let him face a jury of his PEERS - ordinary Americans who are directly affected by his actions.

And let him be judged on his harm to American society in general.

[Cid_B]

207. His peers are members of the military...

Only in the loosest sense of the word but you know what I mean...

[in_cog_ni_to]

146. K & R! n/t

[Dj13Francis]

148. He's not the first...

He's not the first political prisoner of the United States, and he's not likely to be the last. But like many others I've known of before him, he is an inspiration to me. He is fighting for our freedom.

http://youtu.be/agwM79VsNZk

www.DavidJamesFrancis.com

[Hotler]

157. k&r n/t

[ColesCountyDem]

159. I customarily agree with what you write, but in this instance....

... I say 'horse feathers'! Since neither the law nor the evidence supports Pvt. Manning's position, you are reduced to ( metaphorically ) screaming about 'justice'.

Fail!

[Name removed]

162. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ColesCountyDem]

295. Nice personal attack.

Because I happen to think Manning's guilty, this makes me NOT a progressive?

[Hissyspit]

190. "neither the law nor the evidence supports Manning"

Oh, really?

[pacalo]

215. That "evidence" thingy stuck out like it had neon lights flashing around it. :snort:

If it had been spoken, it may have been pronounced "e-vi-DENCE" -- aka "My Cousin Vinny".

:rofl:

[ColesCountyDem]

296. Yes, really. n/t

[KoKo]

160. Kick.....

[micraphone]

165. Well said Will....

I seem to spend a lot of time making much the same points to the "shoot the messenger and ignore the message" types around here.

And there seems to be quite a few, sadly.

[TheCanadianLiberal]

166. Give him a trial and if...

He's guilty put him in jail.

I have no sympathy for someone who does something like that, but the least they can do is give him a trial.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

175. lets hope his dual citizenship with Britain can save him

meanwhile, kicked and recommended.

[spanone]

180. fookin' K & fookin' R

[riderinthestorm]

185. Probably "under the bus with Will Pitt" now on DU but K&R for a thoughtful post. nt

[OwnedByFerrets]

187. But, but, but...the President says he's guilty

:sarcasm:

[Better Believe It]

188. A BIG K & R

[TorchTheWitch]

197. if that was all he stole and he went through proper channels I'd agree

Except the vast majority of what he stole doesn't reveal any crimes or corruption. He didn't even know what was contained in the docs he stole, so the excuse that he stole them out of a sense of moral duty or a sense of conscience is rubbish. Who knows why he stole all those docs that he had no idea what they contained. Maybe he did it because he was pissed that his superiors weren't interested in his complaints or maybe it was an inflated ego or who the hell knows why.

As for Gitmo, we already long since knew what was going on there. What was revealed in what Manning stole is just corroboration at best.

Manning is no whistleblower, and no, he shouldn't go free.

[Kalun D]

205. Siding With Bush Boy Policies

Many war crimes have been committed

and there's been zero prosecution from the Obama "justice" department.

Now, along comes a whistleblower, and Manning is indeed a whistleblower just because of the chopper gunship tape, and he goes straight to prison. Because if all the shit that Bush did was exposed then the Obama puppet would have to do something about it or he would be complicit.

We don't know everything about Gitmo, the Manning dump brought us many details.

They will keep Manning in solitary confinement until he's loony tunes. All the same people that were in there torturing and raping and killing are still there and Obama is too afraid to expose them.

Please keep in mind that what you are defending all started with the bush boy. The same stuff is continuing on. Indefinite detention without trial and torture.

[Shining Jack]

210. +1 n/t

[TorchTheWitch]

217. sorry, under the law he is not a whistleblower

and does not qualify for whistleblower protection for two reasons:

1) He did not steal only that information that revealed crimes or corruption. He does not even KNOW what information was contained in the vast majority of what he stole, and since he does not even KNOW what information was contained in the vast majority of the information that he stole he could not have stolen it for the purpose of revealing crimes or corruption in the first place.

2) He did not go through the required channels to reveal the information and instead gave it all to a foreign entity.

Like it or not, whistleblower protection is granted by law only under the conditions described in The Whistleblower Protection Act, and even a cursory reading of the Act reveals that Manning does not qualify for whistleblower protection and is therefore not a whistleblower under the law.


What other crimes other people have committed or possibly have committed has NO bearing on Manning's case, and it absurd to use the argument that because nothing has been done about other crimes that nothing should be done about his.


How ironic that people here are screaming about "justice" for Manning while ignoring the law and using the ridiculous excuse that because nothing was done about other crimes by other people nothing should be done about Manning's crimes. There IS no justice without adherence to the law, and there IS no justice in advocating ignoring one person's crimes because some other peoples' crimes went WRONGFULLY ignored. It's ludicrous.

[Kalun D]

267. You Know All This

Before it's been proven in trial.

the only thing he's admitted to is the chopper tape

you are taking the word of a known liar government. These are the same people that hold people in detention without trial and torture and kill

these are the people that the release of evidence implicates

these are the people who's word you are taking without question. They are trying Manning in the court of TV fabricated reality because they are afraid to bring him to a real trail.

[snot]

202. K&R'D!

[pacalo]

204. Bravo! Beautifully expressed -- I agree 100%.

[Rusticus Too]

206. I tremble for my Country . . .

when I recall that God is just.

- Thomas Jefferson

[pacalo]

216. Nice quote. It is in relation to what point?

[roody]

209. Support Bradley at www.couragetoresist.org

www.couragetoresist.org

[defendandprotect]

235. K/R

[DeSwiss]

214. K&R n/t

[Truth2Tell]

218. This is your best work ever Will. Mad props. K&R nt

[defendandprotect]

236. +1 -- and we need to overturn this "national security state" ....it's destroying America!!

[PBass]

222. What Bradley Manning did was not principled.

Bradley Manning tried to blow the whistle on civilian deaths, and if he had only leaked documents related to civilian deaths, then I could support him. But that's not what he did.

Instead, he allegedly leaked thousands of documents, most of them totally unrelated to his specific complaints, in a fit of pique. When he couldn't get heard, he tipped over the apple cart. What he allegedly did was recklessly irresponsible, and absolutely stupid.

While I don't condone harsh treatment of detainees, according his father he is not being tortured.

The idea that he should be "freed" is absolutely ludicrous.

[defendandprotect]

224. Agree -- and Obama has simply become Nixon in this torturous endeavor ... Nixon vs Ellsberg!!

The case against him seems as disorganized and specious as the cases against many of the prisoners at Guantanamo, but let us accept for the moment that he did, in fact, release those classified documents. If so, he should be thanked for his actions. As Glenn Greenwald so eloquently argued, "WikiLeaks is responsible for more newsworthy scoops over the last year than all media outlets combined: it's not even a close call. And if Bradley Manning is the leaker, he has done more than any other human being in our lifetime to bring about transparency and shine a light on what military and government power is doing."

Congratulations to both WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning!!

Moreover, if there is actually justice to be found in this morally crippled nation, Bradley Manning should be cleared of all charges and released.


We are a better nation today because we know this, and we have Bradley Manning to thank for it. By exposing war crimes, he has been labeled a criminal even before any hearings have been held. He has been mistreated in a way you would not treat a dog. He showed us the war crimes committed in our name, and has been crushed for it.

Furthermore, justice demands a wide inquiry into the criminal acts of both the Bush and Obama administrations as pertaining to the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.

Thank you, William Pitt!!!

[progressoid]

225. Ain't gonna happen.

Sadly.

k/r

[Ellipsis]

231. Well aren't you fuckin' popular to come out now.

Where the hell you been, Eh?

Welcome aboard my friend. Not that your support would have made any difference earlier... but your coming out this late kinda pisses me off. Especially after all the shit he's gone through... but hey, after he's been transferred to Lebenworth, here you are.

Sorry Will, "tis my first bust your chops. It's like you're just being popular. You should have just not weighed in.

[WilliamPitt]

237. Damned if I do, damned if I don't, eh?

The evolution of opinion is not something you can relate to? That's a shame. It happens to people all the time.

I was wrong on this issue. I learned better. That's how it is supposed to work, and I find your response to be unnecessarily petty and personal.

[Capitalocracy]

240. Hey, I don't care if you're late to the party

What's important is you're here now. Welcome.

[Ellipsis]

271. Petty, maybe... an emotional regurgitation without a doubt.

Still wiping a few drops of bile off my keyboard. As far as the timing of your article, couldn't be more well placed in truth.
It's a hot topic for me. I can't imagine sleeping in a smock made out of indoor outdoor carpet, let alone the all psychological torture the dude has gone through.

Still love your writing, ya big lug.

[WilliamPitt]

291. Well...

That's OK.

:)

:toast:

:hug:

[Vinca]

238. I was thinking about the whole Bradley Manning thing in the middle of the night

and it seems there is no way he could ever receive a fair trial (assuming they get around to charging him with something)since the POTUS has already declared him guilty. His detention is not unlike the stories in the latest batch of Wikileaks of goat herders swept up in Afghanistan and held for years on end for no reason.

[trud]

242. Vinca is right.

No fair trial, held forever, brutalized.

[EFerrari]

261. I've come to the same conclusion. n/t

[readmoreoften]

265. Yes, the "lesser evil" has actually gone further than Bush on this one.

Turns my stomach.

[mountainlion55]

241. Our evil empire

Tune-in, Turn-on, Drop-out:hippie:

[raouldukelives]

243. K&R

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

266. Manning's "crime" is revealing the doings of a suppsedly "democratic" country.

Which asks the question: How can a country claim to be democratic if the demos(common people) don't know what it's doing? How can the people vote for a government if they are kept in the dark about what the government does?

[florida08]

268. This jumped out at me

What Manning has been charged with goes far beyond an act of conscience; they were, in fact, an attempt to save the very soul of these United States.
That's an important distinction

With the military intent doesn't matter. It does with civilians. What they're doing to him is tainting how we see our volunteer army. Will it make a difference? Maybe. Regardless the message has been sent to the rest of the enlisted who might have a moment of conscience. The good news is that Manning's prison transfer might give him access to a computer in the library..maybe..

http://cybersecurityreport.nextgov.com/2011/04/post.php

Pentagon Transcript on WikiLeaks Suspect Omits an Interesting Question
The department got a very public reminder when Wired reporter Kim Zetter tweeted late last night:

@DeptofDefense That Manning transcript is missing a question and answer about whether Manning will have access to a computer at Leavenworth.
@DeptofDefense Reporter asked Hilton if Manning would have a computer; she replied he'd have access to law library where a PC is available.



Defense has not responded to a request for comment.

[SaveAmerica]

270. According to my husband, who spent time deployed in the ME, he is covered by other legal principles

They are told when they are in-processing and still stateside and again when they arrive in country that they are to report any instances of illegal or immoral orders and they are not bound to follow any orders that are illegal or immoral. I asked him what if someone comes across evidence of illegal and immoral orders that have been previously given and executed and he said that you are bound to turn this information in.

My viewpoint is this; America has been violating Geneva Convention rules out the yang and they're trying to shoot the messenger instead of fix what we're doing that is illegal and immoral.

[Terra Alta]

273. Manning should be freed.

and Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc should be the ones who are imprisoned. They are the real criminals here, not Manning.

[KoKo]

278. In a "justice world"...what you say would happen. +1

[midnight]

279. It is dangerous to be right in matters on which established authorities are wrong.

[Rex]

289. If not. Then can we PLEASE have a trial date set?

You know, just to APPEAR to care about the laws...I know we are way past that now. GIVE THE KID A TRIAL!

[Bluebear]

297. Not necessary, Dear Leader has proclaimed him guilty.

[somone]

301. Recommended