Printable View
The end result is the same. You are correct in so far as legal terms are concerned, but as far as my feelings go this man gave classified information to every hostile group our country faces. That may not be treason as defined by the UCMJ but I can't imagine very many who do not view it as a betrayal to our country by one of its own hence treason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
^^^agreedQuote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I haven't yet formed an opinion concerning his innocence for lack of any real basic knowledge concerning his part, WH. It's all hearsay at this point. We may never know the full extent, but does that mean he hasn't been charged legally or is being criminally detained, and dare I say "tortured"?
BTW, my "other" opinion a bit obvious: I'm more than convinced he played a large part. the circumstances and how they'd have allowed him to play such a part are essentially set in stone. Assange denying knowledge of his involvement means little. While I can't be sure and can't speak for much, I do lean towards his involvement. Yet I can't form something more than ignorant without such facts. So I suppose I choose to be ignorant at this point ;)
Manning's detention seems more than warranted to me, the conditions of his detention, I really wouldn't be able to say.
I don't feel sorry for him. I'm assuming that very early on, they let him know his mouth was in control of his destiny. He's obviously refused to talk.
Sorry, I misspoke. I should've said, I don't think they would/could bother to find out. If a soldier was dumb enough to say "Hey I opened up and read the wikilinks" in front of someone at work, then yeah, they might be charged. But if a gov't employee goes home and reads them, the gov't will probably never find out without explicit self-outing.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
The burden of treason is, AFAIK, very specific. It requires an overt act intended to aid an enemy, and requires two witnesses to said act.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
From wikipedia...
Quote:
Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
It cetainly can be considered treason in the "everyday usage" sense of the word, but legally, he hasn't been charged with treason (and won't.)Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
The burden of proof for treason is quite high, due to the ramifications of someone found guilty of treason.
Wow...Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
You believe those lies? Just when i thought you already his bottom, you show me your shit is even deeper!
In time of war, it can indeed be classed as treason if the information had tactical significance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
What specific tactical significance have the Wikileaks had?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I think we have to ask what is being accomplished by mistreating Manning?Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
..the slippery slope...this is behavior we would expect from a third world country
The Marines admit they made a mistake without actually admitting they made a mistake....
CBS NewsQuote:
One week ago, David Coombs, the main lawyer for accused WikiLeaks document leaker Bradley Manning, filed a complaint with military officials against Quantico Base Commander James Averhart.
Coombs accused Averhart of abusing his "discretion" by arbitrarily choosing harsh - some have said tortuous - confinement conditions for Manning, who is housed in the Quantico brig.
On Wednesday, the Marines replaced Averhart as Quantico's commander with Chief Warrant Officer Denise Barnes, CNN reports.
A base spokesman claims the complaint and Averhart's removal are not related, and that the decision to replace Averhart was made back in October, CNN reports.
Coombs said earlier that Averhart, against the recommendations of two psychiatrists, chose to place Manning under suicide watch last week, which allows guards to force Manning to "remain in his cell for 24 hours a day," be "stripped of all clothing with the exception of his underwear," and have "his prescription eyeglasses taken away."
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/201...sia-and-egypt/Quote:
This week, the new brig commander, Chief Warrant Officer 2 Denise Barnes, will decide whether the punitive psychiatric evaluation of Manning ordered by the previous brig commander, James Averhart, will continue or not. Manning is being held in “special quarters” as a result of this status. Manning’s attorney, Iraq veteran Lt. Col David Coomb, cited SECNAVINST 1640.9C in recent statement on Manning’s status. It reads: “Special quarters are not a punitive measure and shall not be used as such. Prisoners must be made aware of the reason they are berthed in special quarters.”
Neither Manning nor Coombs has received an explanation as to why Manning is being held in Special Quarters. In his press conference last week, Department of Defense spokesman Geoff Morrill indicated it was due to the threat Manning posed to national security. However, according to people familiar with military law, placing Manning in MAX custody solely under the basis of the charge would be a violation of Article 13. They indicate Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has stated that a confinement facility must point to more than just the nature of the allegation.
Punitive psychiatry for political ends was systematic in the Soviet Union from the 1960s to the 1980s, according to the British Medial Association.
“In a monolith state, psychiatry can be used to bypass normal legal procedures for assessing guilt or innocence and allow political imprisonment without the usual odium attached to such political trials.”
Brig Commander Averhart’s decision to hold Manning under Protection of Injury Watch and MAX custody was made against the advice of three brig psychiatrists, who have recommended that Manning be moved to Medium Detention In (MDI) and without POI watch restrictions. Contrary to the assertion of Department of Defense Spokesman Geoff Morrell, Manning is the only detainee at the Quantico Brig being held under POI watch/MAX custody.
On January 9 2011 Manning’s lawyer, Iraq veteran Lt. Col. David Coombs filed a demand for a speedy trial with the Government. Since July 12 2010, according to Coombs, the case has been on Government-requested executable delay which was approved by the court-martial convening authority. Coombs indicates that “the case is currently awaiting the start of a Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M) 706 Board. This board will likely begin its work in February.”
Manning has now been in pretrial confinement since May 29, 2010.
the fact is manning sold his soul to the military when he signed that initial contract.
his soul is theirs. although i dont understand why the Marines (of all people) are holding him. his ass belongs to the Army.
America is such a pussy, a wimp, the typical bully scared of it own shadow. It's the strength we get for $1.5T "spent" (yes, that nasty word) on maintaining a vampire-squid face-hug on the planet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
youre like that one guy in the bar alone in the corner...drunk and talking to himself about how much he hates everyone for his own fuckups
:toast
Sure, but the miltary isn't a rule-free environment. There are still consequences for abusing the rules. Just ask the former brig commander at Quantico.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reckoning
im sure the former brig commander would still be the brig commander if it wasnt for manning's attorney threatening to take legal action.
the military has no qualms for it's own personnel who sell it out.
MY fuckups? Did I fuckup by wasting $1.5T/year on the UCA empire?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reckoning
Your Perfect Country, Always Right and Never Wrong?
The UCA Apocalypse won't be like the Bible-thumping hucksters say. It will be entirely to the UCA's self-destruction.
Infinitely justified, but couldn't brave the legal or political consequences for mistreating Manning.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reckoning
No qualms either about selling out commanders who do their duty, if that duty becomes politically embarrassing. Every part of the goddam stick is shitty.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reckoning
the military and its civilian leaders have no problem isolating the problems as "bad apples" when the entire chain of command was guilty. abu Ghraib is the classic example.
What kind of fucked IT security would give a grunt like Manning access to so much information?
Have any military IT people or very probably private contractor IT people been even mentioned in this huge security fiasco, let alone punished?
And going after ONLY Manning and Assange as criminals while doing nothing about the big name newspapers in several countries that cooperated with Assange is ridiculous
Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
the butts around here that hurt don't count mine among them.