News:

Testamonial:  And i have actually gone to a bar and had a bouncer try to start a fight with me on the way in. I broke his teeth out of his fucking mouth and put his face through a passenger side window of a car.

Guess thats what the Internet was build for, pussy motherfuckers taking shit in safety...

Main Menu

Bradley Manning pre-trial.

Started by Prince Glittersnatch III, December 21, 2011, 08:21:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Prince Glittersnatch III

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/dec/19/bradley-manning-pre-trial-hearing-live-updates

The Bradley Manning trial is starting.

Quote• Thousands more confidential cables could have been leaked by Manning were it not for a corrupted computer file, it was suggested in court. A computer forensics expert said he found a file containing 10,000 cables – none of which had been released by WikiLeaks. "When it was created something went wrong, there was a partial problem," David Shaver said.

• It was suggested that Manning had hoped to "remove the fog of war" by releasing hundreds of thousands of classified documents on Iraq and Afghanistan. A memory card found amongst the soldier's belongings after they were shipped back to his aunt's house contained 400,000 records of significant activities from Iraq and 91,000 from Afghanistan. A text document alongside the files stated: "This is possibly one of the more significant documents of our time. Removing the fog of war and revealing the true nature of 21st century asymmetrical warfare." Other files found on either the memory stick or Manning's laptop contained contact information for Julian Assange and instructions on how to upload data to WikiLeaks, the court was told.

• The court heard from Manning's former roommate Eric Baker, a military police officer, who said after learning Manning was gay he stopped talking to him apart from conversations about whether or not to turn off the lights. Baker seemed reluctant to say that Manning had no friends but he conceded he spent most of his time alone, as Manning's lawyer David Coombs attempted to underscore his client's isolation as a gay military man.

• There was more evidence of lax security at Forward Operating Base Hammer in eastern Iraq where Manning worked. No passwords were required to access the cables and there was no prohibition on downloading cables, the hearing was told. The USB ports on Manning's computers were blocked as part of army policy so he could not download material to a USB stick or load programs or information from one, but Manning had downloaded Roxio, a program for burning CDs, onto both of his computers.

• Daniel Choi, the US soldier who was discharged from the army after coming out, was removed from Fort Meade following a confrontation with military police. Choi was accused of heckling military police, but denied this when speaking to the Guardian. He said excessive force was used to remove him from the complex.

• Scott Olsen, the Iraq war veteran injured during an Occupy Oakland protest in October, has called for the UN Special Rapporteur for Torture to be allowed access to Bradley Manning to discuss his treatment. "I served my country as a US Marine in Iraq," Olsen said. "It pains me to think that fellow Marines were ordered to effectively torture a soldier who, by blowing the whistle on the killing of innocent civilians in Iraq, helped end that war."
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?=743264506 <---worst human being to ever live.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Other%20Pagan%20Mumbo-Jumbo/discordianism.htm <----Learn the truth behind Discordianism

Quote from: Aleister Growly on September 04, 2010, 04:08:37 AM
Glittersnatch would be a rather unfortunate condition, if a halfway decent troll name.

Quote from: GIGGLES on June 16, 2011, 10:24:05 PM
AORTAL SEX MADES MY DICK HARD AS FUCK!

Dysfunctional Cunt

I don't know how to feel about this.  There is the thinking that he was letting the people know the truth against the who are you to decide what should be public knowledge and what shouldn't against the whole it really was treason thing.

Cain

Quote from: Khara on December 21, 2011, 08:33:26 PM
I don't know how to feel about this.  There is the thinking that he was letting the people know the truth against the who are you to decide what should be public knowledge and what shouldn't against the whole it really was treason thing.

Bullshit.  Treason is selling out your country to a specific, foreign power.  Manning turned over the cables to a journalist, who then released them.   Last time I checked, the USA is not at war with journalism (well, officially, at least).

If Bradley Manning is guilty of treason, then so is every single "anonymous White House source" who has leaked something national security related to the press.  And Daniel Ellsberg.  And that NSA guy, Drake.  And tons of other people besides, none of whom are currently being tried in a court.

This is about embarassing the US government, nothing more.

Dysfunctional Cunt

Quote from: Cain on December 21, 2011, 08:43:14 PM
Quote from: Khara on December 21, 2011, 08:33:26 PM
I don't know how to feel about this.  There is the thinking that he was letting the people know the truth against the who are you to decide what should be public knowledge and what shouldn't against the whole it really was treason thing.

Bullshit.  Treason is selling out your country to a specific, foreign power.  Manning turned over the cables to a journalist, who then released them.   Last time I checked, the USA is not at war with journalism (well, officially, at least).

If Bradley Manning is guilty of treason, then so is every single "anonymous White House source" who has leaked something national security related to the press.  And Daniel Ellsberg.  And that NSA guy, Drake.  And tons of other people besides, none of whom are currently being tried in a court.

This is about embarassing the US government, nothing more.

While that is a nice personal definition of treason, the Army does not, has never and never will agree with it.

It's not like he didn't know the possible consequences.  There is a difference between a member of the military and a member of government staff, and while it would be nice if the same rules applied, they don't.

I may agree with what he did to a point, but I also understand where the military is coming from.  No these were not essential documents that led to the death of hundreds, but it was still against the rules the Army has.  Rules which the Army makes abundantly clear and in your face. 

You can't pick and choose when to obey them and when not too when you are in the service.  You just can't.  It doesn't work that way.  Besides, to repeat ad anuseum, he knew the possible consequences before he did anything. 

Cramulus

Manning definitely intentionally broke the army's rules. No question about that.

I wouldn't call it treason. We'll see what the army calls it.


Did Manning do something wrong (in an ethical sense)? That's a complex question with no simple answer.

Was he justified in what he did? I think so. Without Manning's sacrifice, there'd be no arab spring, and possibly no #occupy.

Cain

Quote from: Khara on December 21, 2011, 08:54:29 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 21, 2011, 08:43:14 PM
Quote from: Khara on December 21, 2011, 08:33:26 PM
I don't know how to feel about this.  There is the thinking that he was letting the people know the truth against the who are you to decide what should be public knowledge and what shouldn't against the whole it really was treason thing.

Bullshit.  Treason is selling out your country to a specific, foreign power.  Manning turned over the cables to a journalist, who then released them.   Last time I checked, the USA is not at war with journalism (well, officially, at least).

If Bradley Manning is guilty of treason, then so is every single "anonymous White House source" who has leaked something national security related to the press.  And Daniel Ellsberg.  And that NSA guy, Drake.  And tons of other people besides, none of whom are currently being tried in a court.

This is about embarassing the US government, nothing more.

While that is a nice personal definition of treason, the Army does not, has never and never will agree with it.

It's not like he didn't know the possible consequences.  There is a difference between a member of the military and a member of government staff, and while it would be nice if the same rules applied, they don't.

I may agree with what he did to a point, but I also understand where the military is coming from.  No these were not essential documents that led to the death of hundreds, but it was still against the rules the Army has.  Rules which the Army makes abundantly clear and in your face. 

You can't pick and choose when to obey them and when not too when you are in the service.  You just can't.  It doesn't work that way.  Besides, to repeat ad anuseum, he knew the possible consequences before he did anything. 

Actually, it's the legal definition, as defined by the US Constitution.  Unless your position is that the military can somehow overrule the highest laws of the land?  Manning is a whistleblower, not a traitor.

Don't condescend to me, when you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Cain

Quote from: Cramulus on December 21, 2011, 09:32:00 PM
Did Manning do something wrong (in an ethical sense)?

Actually, that's the easiest question of them all to answer.

The US is waging covert and over war over the Greater Middle East, to secure trade routes and natural resources which enrich the ruling elites of the nation.  Assassinating teenagers, bombing scientific facilities, supporting bloody dictators and shipping in arms in vast quantities, with very little in the way of oversight, public debate or any form of consent.

Manning is alleged to have leaked documents which showed US political duplicity, both at home and abroad, in achieving these goals.  If that was indeed his motivation, then he is no different to the likes of Daniel Ellsberg.

You (in general, not Cram) can quibble with how Wikileaks handled the documents, as many have, but Manning is not, of course, a member of the Wikileaks team.

Cain

Manning is charged under the UCMJ of "aiding the enemy".  Let's just look at the definition of that crime, shall we?

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm104.htm

QuoteText.

"Any person who—

(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct."

Elements.

(1) Aiding the enemy.

     (a) That the accused aided the enemy; and

     (b) That the accused did so with certain arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things.

(2) Attempting to aid the enemy.

     (a) That the accused did a certain overt act;

     (b) That the act was done with the intent to aid the enemy with certain arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things;

     (c) That the act amounted to more than mere preparation; and

     (d) That the act apparently tended to bring about the offense of aiding the enemy with certain arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things.

(3) Harboring or protecting the enemy.

     (a) That the accused, without proper authority, harbored or protected a person;

     (b) That the person so harbored or protected was the enemy; and

     (c) That the accused knew that the person so harbored or protected was an enemy.

(4) Giving intelligence to the enemy.

     (a) That the accused, without proper authority, knowingly gave intelligence information to the enemy; and

     (b) That the intelligence information was true, or implied the truth, at least in part.

(5) Communicating with the enemy.

     (a) That the accused, without proper authority, communicated, corresponded, or held intercourse with the enemy, and;

     (b) That the accused knew that the accused was communicating, corresponding, or holding intercourse with the enemy.

Explanation.

(1) Scope of Article 104. This article denounces offenses by all persons whether or not otherwise subject to military law. Offenders may be tried by court-martial or by military commission.

(2) Enemy. For a discussion of "enemy," see paragraph - 23c(1)(b).

(3) Aiding or attempting to aid the enemy. It is not a violation of this article to furnish prisoners of war subsistence, quarters, and other comforts or aid to which they are lawfully entitled.

(4) Harboring or protecting the enemy.

     (a) Nature of offense. An enemy is harbored or protected when, without proper authority, that enemy is shielded, either physically or by use of any artifice, aid, or representation from any injury or misfortune which in the chance of war may occur.

     (b) Knowledge. Actual knowledge is required, but may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

(5) Giving intelligence to the enemy.

     (a) Nature of offense. Giving intelligence to the enemy is a particular case of corresponding with the enemy made more serious by the fact that the communication contains intelligence that may be useful to the enemy for any of the many reasons that make information valuable to belligerents. This intelligence may be conveyed by direct or indirect means.

     (b) Intelligence. "Intelligence" imports that the information conveyed is true or implies the truth, at least in part.

     (c) Knowledge. Actual knowledge is required but may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

(6) Communicating with the enemy.

     (a) Nature of the offense. 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. A prisoner of war may violate this Article by engaging in unauthorized communications with the enemy. See also - paragraph 29c(3).

     (b) Knowledge. Actual knowledge is required but may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

     (c) Citizens of neutral powers. Citizens of neutral powers resident in or visiting invaded or occupied territory can claim no immunity from the customary laws of war relating to communication with the enemy.

Lesser included offense.

For harboring or protecting the enemy, giving intelligence to the enemy, or communicating with the enemy. Article 80—attempts

Maximum punishment.

Death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct

So, according to this, Manning had to either be giving classified information to the Iraqi insurgents and/or Al-Qaeda affiliates specified under the AUMF 2001 or have intended to for the charge of "aiding the enemy" to stick.

But he didn't.  He gave it to an accredited journalist of an allied nation with a reputation for handling issues sensitive to national security and international crimes.

At no point is there any evidence that he gave either intended to or actually ended up giving classified information to groups violently resisting the United States Government.

But, you know, I'm just making up personal definitions for things, whereas Khara, Expert Military Lawyer, knows Manning is a traitor, even if the standards of the Constitution and the UCMJ clearly don't apply to him.

The Good Reverend Roger

Couple of things, here:

1.  Cain - While you are correct, Khara is operating under the definition of treason as understood by the vast majority of US citizens.  Culturally speaking, Americans as a whole have been conditioned to believe that treason is defined as "thwarting the government, particularly the military".  While she is incorrect, this is such a commonplace fallacy that it's hard for me to sneer or belittle her for it.  People here in "the land of the free" are taught from birth to believe that the military is the final arbiter of what is and is not patriotic on one hand or treasonous on the other.

Consider the laughable "support the troops" slogans of the last decade.  What the hell does that even MEAN?  Nobody ever could answer that, because there IS no answer other than "do not question the CINC or pentagon under any circumstances".  It's not Khara acting foolish, it's Khara acting on bad signal that is damn near universal in this country.  I am sure there are some similarities in the UK, though I doubt it's nearly as bad.


2.  Khara - Cain is correct in that there is a strict legal and constitutional definition of treason, and Bradley Manning's acts do not in any way qualify for that charge.  Had he given the documents to Al Qaeda, he would be legally guilty - probably - of treason.  The fact that he revealed wrongdoing to the press is an entirely different matter.  The US government was acting illegally in some cases, and unethically in the rest of the cases in question.

The military - even moreso than the rest of the government - has to be held accountable at all times.  It is the single biggest potential danger to the American public and to the American republic that exists.  While bankers may steal from us and influence our laws, the military can at any time sieze power and there is nobody that could stop them, period.  For this reason they must always be at the mercy of the press and the American people...And I say that as a veteran - especially as a veteran - and the father of a Marine.  
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Cramulus on December 21, 2011, 09:32:00 PM
Did Manning do something wrong (in an ethical sense)? That's a complex question with no simple answer.

As a citizen, Manning did the right thing.  The government is a treacherous beast that must always be scrutinized.

As a soldier, Manning did the right thing.  Blindly following orders is no excuse for wrongdoing or the concealment of the wrongdoing of others under any circumstances, and is in fact against the code of conduct taught to recruits from day 1. 

In an ethical sense, there was nothing else Manning could do.

In a real world sense, the poor boy is cold fucking meat.  He'll never see daylight again.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Don Coyote

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2011, 11:25:28 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on December 21, 2011, 09:32:00 PM
Did Manning do something wrong (in an ethical sense)? That's a complex question with no simple answer.

As a citizen, Manning did the right thing.  The government is a treacherous beast that must always be scrutinized.

As a soldier, Manning did the right thing.  Blindly following orders is no excuse for wrongdoing or the concealment of the wrongdoing of others under any circumstances, and is in fact against the code of conduct taught to recruits from day 1. 

In an ethical sense, there was nothing else Manning could do.

In a real world sense, the poor boy is cold fucking meat.  He'll never see daylight again.

I got nothing other than to voice my agreement with TGGR on this.

Dysfunctional Cunt

I have no issues admitting I'm wrong and Cain I am truly sorry if you felt I was being condescending, I did not mean it that way. My apologies.

LMNO

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2011, 11:21:33 PM
Couple of things, here:

1.  Cain - While you are correct, Khara is operating under the definition of treason as understood by the vast majority of US citizens.  Culturally speaking, Americans as a whole have been conditioned to believe that treason is defined as "thwarting the government, particularly the military".  While she is incorrect, this is such a commonplace fallacy that it's hard for me to sneer or belittle her for it.  People here in "the land of the free" are taught from birth to believe that the military is the final arbiter of what is and is not patriotic on one hand or treasonous on the other.

Consider the laughable "support the troops" slogans of the last decade.  What the hell does that even MEAN?  Nobody ever could answer that, because there IS no answer other than "do not question the CINC or pentagon under any circumstances".  It's not Khara acting foolish, it's Khara acting on bad signal that is damn near universal in this country.  I am sure there are some similarities in the UK, though I doubt it's nearly as bad.


2.  Khara - Cain is correct in that there is a strict legal and constitutional definition of treason, and Bradley Manning's acts do not in any way qualify for that charge.  Had he given the documents to Al Qaeda, he would be legally guilty - probably - of treason.  The fact that he revealed wrongdoing to the press is an entirely different matter.  The US government was acting illegally in some cases, and unethically in the rest of the cases in question.

The military - even moreso than the rest of the government - has to be held accountable at all times.  It is the single biggest potential danger to the American public and to the American republic that exists.  While bankers may steal from us and influence our laws, the military can at any time sieze power and there is nobody that could stop them, period.  For this reason they must always be at the mercy of the press and the American people...And I say that as a veteran - especially as a veteran - and the father of a Marine.  

That's a near-perfect summation of the clusterfuck as I can think of.

Quote from: Cain on December 21, 2011, 09:49:58 PM
The US is waging covert and over war over the Greater Middle East, to secure trade routes and natural resources which enrich the ruling elites of the nation.  Assassinating teenagers, bombing scientific facilities, supporting bloody dictators and shipping in arms in vast quantities, with very little in the way of oversight, public debate or any form of consent.

Manning is alleged to have leaked documents which showed US political duplicity, both at home and abroad, in achieving these goals.  If that was indeed his motivation, then he is no different to the likes of Daniel Ellsberg.

You (in general, not Cram) can quibble with how Wikileaks handled the documents, as many have, but Manning is not, of course, a member of the Wikileaks team.

As is that.

BabylonHoruv

Manning is a hero, it's simple and obvious.  He's also a martyr.  The chances of him getting anything but proper fucked are slim to none.

The only good I can see here is that a lot of people are aware that he's a hero and that what is being done to him is wrong. 

The articles I have read suggested that he knew what the possible consequences of his actions were, and was prepared to face them.  That doesn't make them any less unjust or awful, but hopefully that resolve has helped him to endure so far and will continue to do so.
You're a special case, Babylon.  You are offensive even when you don't post.

Merely by being alive, you make everyone just a little more miserable

-Dok Howl

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 22, 2011, 06:52:40 PM
The only good I can see here is that a lot of people are aware that he's a hero and that what is being done to him is wrong. 

And they - we - sit and do sweet fuck all.

How is this "good"?
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.