Bradley Manning Found Not Guilty Of Aiding The Enemy But Convicted On Other Charges
from the a-bit-of-good-news dept
So, the details aren't out yet, but the headline message is: Bradley Manning has been found "not guilty" of "aiding the enemy" but has been convicted on other charges, including violating the Espionage Act -- which seems a bit crazy, because what he was doing wasn't espionage in any sense of the word. The conviction on those charges is unfortunate, but not a huge surprise. All told, he was found guilty on 19 counts, including four that he'd already pled guilty to. The big question had really been all about the aiding the enemy claim. Either way, he's still facing a potential sentence of about 100 years in jail, though the next stage of this process will be over his sentencing. We'll have more later as the details come out.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: aiding the enemy, bradley manning, convicted, espionage act
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So...
Would it have been the death penalty?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
The judge convicted Manning on nearly all of the lesser charges against him, opening up a sentencing phase of the trail that begins Wednesday that could still put the 25-year-old in a military prison for the rest of his life. She also acquitted him of one count under the espionage act that stemmed from his release of a video that showed a fatal military airstrike in Afghanistan.
Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/07/30/bradley-manning-acquitted-of-aiding-the-enemy-guilty-of-espiona ge/#ixzz2aYvwolxd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So...
*and* -as i just read, i think it was norman solomon- she then makes the charges of 'giving inconvenient truths to the amerikan people and practicing actual journalism' a crime against The State, seem almost reasonable...
all in all, a travesty of justice, and the fears and insecurities of Empire being visited upon a lone truth-teller, too honest and stubborn and heroic to let a monstrous, murderous, mutated system imprison his mind, heart, and soul...
Bradley Manning has my utmost respect for his self-sacrifice against the might of Empire.
He can only be repaid by taking our democracy to heel.
A sad, horrific day for The Grand Experiment which has born a Frankenstein... i weep for amerika, Bradley gets my admiration and respect...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is this another case where the government is using different definitions of words than what ordinary language would imply?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Aiding the enemy could be charged even when it doesn't have anything to do with giving secret information to the enemy. Providing funding out of your own pocket, for instance, could be aiding the enemy but would have nothing to do with espionage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whistle Blowers Take Cover
In Obama's Amerika we have Military Tank stops Square Man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
There's still some hope of appeal for overturn and dismissal on grounds of being tortured prior to trial.
But we should take the lesson here, not to be afraid of the gov't, but to acknowledge how evil it is. There's no compromise that can be made with evil. (As Ayn Rand said.)
Those of you who believe that Manning shouldn't have released all those docs when supposedly endangered the lives of US informants -- known in Afghanistan and Iraq as collaborators with foreign invaders -- have simply fallen for the essential lie that the wars were in any degree necessary or just. Getting the truth out is never traitorous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
This is of course a massive injustice, as someone should only ever be convicted of a crime that can be proven by the prosecution, but at least as things are now that is the reasoning behind someone 'pleading guilty'.
Here's hoping for an appeal or overturning of the sentencing too later on, the fact that he was kept imprisoned for three years before sentencing should damn well have more of an impact than 'oh, well we'll just make that count against the time you're sentence to'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
But I agree, plea deals are broken, especially when weighed against overzealous prison sentences. What you essentially have is a prosecutor saying, I think your crime deserves 6 months in prison, but if you exercise your right to a fair trial, I think your crime deserves 6 years in prison. You have now made the prosecutor judge and jury.
And let's not forget that something like 97% of all federal cases that are resolved are plea deals...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
I'm wondering if the defense can't bring them up in a trial as a way to illustrate that the prosecution is just trying to punish the defendant for not accepting the plea bargain. Maybe call the prosecutor as a witness and ask them flat-out, why if they thought the defendant deserved such heavy punishment, were they willing to let them off with a much lighter sentence if they took the deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
If justice is truly blind, Manning's conviction will be overturned for violation of his rights, as well. I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
Unfortunately, I can't even do that without altering my browser settings. I normally have Javascript disabled for any site that doesn't absolutely require it, and because of that, all I see is a note that the comment is hidden, but with no way to view it unless I turn on JS.
It used to just show me the post, but it hasn't done that since they started showing only partial stories on the main page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
Before you engage censorship mode..
"oh, I don't agree with that !!!! Time to CENSOR...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
Until then you will see the backlash from the users.
Just look above, your OOTB buddy has actually had some praise for his previous comment, people are actually defending him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
Then I got to the Ayn Rand bit, and immediately closed my browser. Shortly thereafter I lost the will to live on this planet anymore. I am posting from the Twisting Nether, a realm of eternal despair for lost souls who wish to never have been born into this senseless world.
The rest of the post was surprisingly non-out_of_the_blue-ish. I almost enjoyed it.
--
Have a nice day. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
So you report things you don't agree with, out of habit, you don't even have to think about it anymore, it is just that NATURAL for you to censor first... then don't bother asking questions..
Nice CENSORSHIP... what else are you going to censor today,, out of habit...????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
I have to ask though if you're the real OOTB. Given how often the phrase 'teh rich' is used in the reposts plastered everywhere and the constant call for more money to be given to the government by the usual blue I have a hard time believing they would reference Ayn Rand in such a positive light or suggest the government was anything but great.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
1. "not spam" button?
2. do not respond to trolls. (I'm proud of you guys, the "censorbawk" chump below got no reply so far :])
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
It's what Masnick would have wanted.
You cant have people posting here who disagree with Masnick, what are you thinking..
Masnick would rather CENSOR that to have to deal with people who don't agree with him...
Nice CENSORSHIP MASNICK...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'll never understand the guilty pleas. Always a mistake.
Because you don't agree with masnick, the nice people at TD have chosen to CENSOR YOU..
Congrats
To the TD CENSORS, I hope you are proud of your censorship efforts... I am sure Masnick is proud of you too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TD CENSORSHIP at it's very best.. grats 'the nick'.
The TD censors are working overtime today, I hope Mick the nick is paying them well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Virtually a death penalty. Sometimes I hope somebody blow the place he's kept up and rescue him. It's unfortunate and I feel for manning.
And Mr Holder is promising not to screw up Snowden royally if he comes back. Riiiight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking.
No, the "U.S." won't torture and kill Snowden. They'll just railroad him on charges that will guarantee him a life in prison. And turn a blind eye when the other prisoners do the job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
November 13, 1797... what about it?
On topic, it was a nauseating freakshow watching the tools in charge run this duplicitous sham of a trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/did-lincoln-declare-war-on-the-confederacy.1183/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
so is he a sham of himself ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tiny victories
I'm not surprised either that Manning was guilty of espionage, the government will always look for something. However I think that the non-guilty verdict for aiding the enemy is important. Governments and administrations cannot simply call every person who leaks information a traitor or accomplice to the enemy just because a potential enemy can see that info by going to a website or watching the news, let alone "secret" enemies which also happen to exist now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Manning exposed rampant over-classification by US gov, that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were totally unnecessary, and scads of other abuses of power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He revealed that the US military was intentionally giving prisoners over to the Iraqi security forces so they could be tortured, then obtaining and acting on the results of the torture.
He revealed the contractors in Afghanistan were having Us officials cover up child abuse the contractors were engaging in.
He revealed that the Guantanamo prisoners were mostly innocent nobodies.
He revealed that the US does actually have a tally of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, and were lying to us about it.
He revealed that the US military was covering up acts of indiscriminate killings of civilians by US forces.
He revealed that the FBI trained the people who were engaging in torture for Egypt.
... and much, much more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"He revealed that the US military was intentionally giving prisoners over to the Iraqi security forces so they could be tortured, then obtaining and acting on the results of the torture."
I searched and searched, and did not find a single reference explaining how the U.S. intentionally turned prisoners over to Iraq so they could be tortured. I would appreciate a reference for this information.
"He revealed the contractors in Afghanistan were having Us officials cover up child abuse the contractors were engaging in."
The incident was a party at which boys were hired to dance while dressed in girls costumes. The event caused high level issues with the Afghan government and several internal investigations, including a need for additional oversight with respect to the company involved. There were no documented cases of child abuse with respect to the party.
"He revealed that the Guantanamo prisoners were mostly innocent nobodies."
I need a reference for this "fact." I did a lot of searching and was unable to find a document that supposedly stated that "most" of Guantanamo's prisoners were innocent.
As for being a "nobody," one can be guilty of a crime and still be a nobody.
"He revealed that the US does actually have a tally of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, and were lying to us about it."
I am not even sure what your statement means. The U.S. routinely keeps a tally of civilian deaths in war zones. The numbers, while interesting, are rarely accurate. There have been several studies and surveys of the number of civilians that have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the high and low numbers vary by 200%. The "official" U.S. tally, which is widely published, is slightly below the midpoint of the range.
"He revealed that the US military was covering up acts of indiscriminate killings of civilians by US forces."
Really? With all the press coverage of civilian killings, the U.S. military must have to work really hard to cover up "indiscriminate" killing. If the killing was truly "indiscriminate," the number of deaths in Afghanistan would be in the hundreds of thousands. War sucks, and bombs rarely discriminate between good guys and bad guys. Furthermore, when the enemy dresses like a civilian, how do you know which is Al Queda, Taliban, or civilian? Sometimes hey are all three. We even sometimes kill our own people in error.
"He revealed that the FBI trained the people who were engaging in torture for Egypt."
We trained the people in Iran who later tortured U.S. civilians after the 1980 takeover. What is your point? It is not like there were any secrets, just people who did not connect the obvious dots.
I am not seeing much in the way of "revelations" from Manning that really show me mass amounts of malfeasance on the part of the U.S. government. Of course, maybe you have yet to present your best evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Instead, because of the audacity, size, and true irrelevance of what was released, HE became the story instead of whatever he thought he was trying to expose. That alone makes him a martyr for idiocy. He showed a bare semblance of discretion in what was released. If he had specific knowledge of specific illegal actions/acts/orders, he could have been protected under the Military Whistleblowers Protection Act, PROVIDED he followed the law. Properly adhering to that law requires certain things (http://www.ig.navy.mil/complaints/Complaints), which HE DID NOT DO.
Now, obviously IANAL, so maybe I don't understand some of this stuff, particularly the applicability of the espionage law here. I can't see particularly how it doesn't apply, but espionage doesn't have to include communicating things to enemies at all. We keep secrets from our allies as well. With good reason.
Some of the things we say about them, even in diplomatic cables, are going to be unflattering and potentially disrespectful (as demonstrated by some of what he released). Our diplomats must be able to talk to each other frankly however, without worrying about some functionary in another government being pissed about an email sent describing him as a fat alcoholic with a fondness for expensive dinners. That may be necessary as a way to understand that person. Broadcasting it to the world though, does no one, not our country or the dude being discussed, any good whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What has breaking the law got to do with anything?
What should be considered is - whether or not the actions of those who are representing you are actions that you would condone happening to you or by you? If these actions are not acceptable then, even if they are legal, should they not be shown in the light of day for review by the citizens on whose behalf the government is acting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is time for you to face the fact that you are worshipping at the feet of the most corrupt government in the world. A goverment that commits more human rights abuses than any Dictatorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Manning is no hero,
Being correct is no defence on TD for the censors, stating the truth will get you censored here quick smart, especially if someone here does not agree with you.
you'll be Masnick sanctioned censored quick smart..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Manning is no hero,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ayn Rand!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Big Surprise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Big Surprise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No Big Surprise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In my mind i would collect all the data over a long period of time and copy it to a usb stick. I would then a few years later resign, move to another country legally and disappear under an assumed ID. It is not impossible to assume another ID, it is done all the time.
Only once i had not worked in the place i got the information from for a few years would i anonymously release it all.
And the government only has themselves to blame they have made sure any whistleblowers will make sure they are protected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
Yet another problem that Manning had was that he never supported his original supposition of wrong-doing by the U.S. He may have uncovered other issues, but apparently none of the documents he released supported his particular concerns about U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. If such wrong-doing would have been discovered, there are always plenty of people in Congress who would love to make a name for themselves by leveraging that information for their career.
Instead, Manning made copies of information (keeping in mind that Manning calls himself a hacker) that he either had a duty to protect by the contracts that he signed, or information he obtained through illicit means (which many would call hacking, and which Manning described himself on his blog), and without understanding the effect that information might have on U.S. operations, he released it.
What Manning did falls squarely under the U.S. Espionage Act, which is Title 18, Chapter 37, regardless of what you would like to believe. I suspect that the people who do not believe that Manning violated the Title 18, Chapter 37, have never read it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
I definitely do not support the charge of "aiding the enemy" but I wouldn't go so far as to call him a national hero either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
The legal system, even the military courts, are supposed to take into account intent as much as the letter of the law and I personally don't believe that he should have been charged with espionage. He did however break the law and should be punished appropriately. I'm not sure that 100 years in a military prison is appropriate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
Manning bragged about his ability to crack passwords. Cracking passwords is, according to all the definitions I have found on the internet, hacking.
In general, gaining access to information that you are not supposed to have is highly illegal, and Manning has now been convicted, at least in part, of that crime. So, in this case, hacker and lawbreaker are exactly the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
Then say "lawbreaker". Because hackers and lawbreakers are not exactly the same thing. Some hackers are lawbreakers, and some lawbreakers are hackers, but they are different groups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hacking software and hardware, cracking password, what of it?
I have altered software to get it to work or to find out how it works. These days these kinds of activities are considered by various to be illegal, yet when I started out in the business it was expected and a sign that you were doing your job properly.
Hacking software or cracking passwords in and of itself is just a task. It is neither good nor bad. What your intent is by doing this determines whether the actions you are undertaking are good or bad. It is quite irrelevant whether there are laws that say doing this is bad. Simply because, the law is an ass. Law in and of itself determines nothing about whether or not some action is good or bad. If a law is put on place by corrupt means then even though it is the law it is "bad".
Just because you gain access to information that someone doesn't want you to have doesn't mean you should not have access to it. The law that prevents you from knowing or gaining access to that information may have been simply put in place to provide corrupt control over you.
You are responsible for your own actions and if you have specific standards that say obeying a particular law is wrong and yet you obey it then are you not doing wrong.
There are laws that are for the good of all, there are laws for the good of only a few to the detriment of the many and there are laws that are just plain down right stupid and meaningless.
Each of us has to choose how we live our lives and then live by the consequences.
I think that Manning has made a choice and he is facing the consequences. Those who are prosecuting him are also making choices and will also have to live by the consequences as well.
I don't know Manning or the reasons he chose to do what he did. I can't judge whether he is a hero or a villain. What I do see is this appears to be a case of "shoot the messenger" instead of looking at what the message is and fixing the inherent problems in the system.
Yes, he has broken the "law" as it is written. This, in and of itself, determines nothing about whether or not what he has done is wrong. So far the indications are that he has done the citizens of the USA a great service. Whether or not, lasting and good change comes out of it is yet to be seen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
"Up to this point, during the deployment, I had issues I struggled with and difficulty at work. Of the documents release, the cables were the only one I was not absolutely certain couldn't harm the United States. I conducted research on the cables published on the Net Centric Diplomacy, as well as how Department of State cables worked in general.
"In particular, I wanted to know how each cable was published on SIRPnet via the Net Centric Diplomacy. As part of my open source research, I found a document published by the Department of State on its official website.
"The document provided guidance on caption markings for individual cables and handling instructions for their distribution. I quickly learned the caption markings clearly detailed the sensitivity of the Department of State cables. For example, NODIS or No Distribution was used for messages at the highest sensitivity and were only distributed to the authorized recipients.
"The SIPDIS or SIPRnet distribution caption was applied only to recording of other information messages that were deemed appropriate for a release for a wide number of individuals. According to the Department of State guidance for a cable to have the SIPDIS caption, it could not include other captions that were intended to limit distribution.
"The SIPDIS caption was only for information that could only be shared with anyone with access to SIPRnet. I was aware that thousands of military personel, DoD, Department of State, and other civilian agencies had easy access to the tables. The fact that the SIPDIS caption was only for wide distribution made sense to me, given that the vast majority of the Net Centric Diplomacy Cables were not classified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
As far as particular crimes, sounds like you didn't even try to look it up. For example, the Reuters journalists who were murdered in the Collateral Murder video. The document dump also shows that the US knew the Iraqis were torturing their detainees, and yet they continued to hand them over - that's a crime too. Particularly disgusting in my opinion was how DynCorp pimped out young boys to Afghan recruits (key words to look for are "bacha bazi").
I'm sure there's more. That is just off the top of my head. Now, why don't you know these things? Because the mainstream media isn't talking about what was leaked, they only talk about the leaks in the abstract. I would wager that Mr. Manning has reviewed more of these cables than you have, sir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
how can you do due dilligence when you don't what is in the documents?
If the goal is to be a whistle blower, then get the documents together that show the specific case, and release them. What Manning did was basically say "I don't like the things they do... you figure out what" - and then dumped more documents than anyone could read in years. There is no way in hell that he knew all that he was releasing.
He made a choice that all documents in a given class, without reading them himself, were okay to give away - not because it specifically showed any wrong doing, but because he generally thought they were being bad people. That's not being a whistleblower, that's being a shit disturber and putting your own opinion above everyone elses. He put people at risk and harmed relationships between the US and many people, all because he didn't like they way they worked.
I don't think anyone can point to any specific comments from Manning that says "I released THIS document, and THIS document to show that THIS SPECIFIC BAD THING was happening". He just poured it all into someone else's hands and said "you figure it out". That doesn't seem very much like whistleblowing, sort of using a nuclear weapon to kill fleas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
If all these documents were supposedly "deemed appropriate for release for a wide number of individuals," then why was he not found innocent of all charges?
Regardless of how you like to characterize what he did, few people, myself included, could ever see 700,000 documents as being evidence of wrong-doing, unless the U.S.
government was engaged in such egregious wrong-doing that the entire government should be tried in court. I agree with the person who said earlier that it would have been more palatable had he released a smaller number of targeted documents that supported his contention. Then he would likely have been universally hailed as a hero rather than a self-aggrandizing loser looking for his 15 minutes of fame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
What we have here is a failure to actually think. The answer is, obviously, because that's technically legal and that's what the people who control both the law and what labels are put on things have decided they want. I love how you keep mistaking this set of circular arguments for something that's actually germane though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
You should be on Manning's defense team.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am wondering if anyone read the comments about the trial...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government injustice
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm
Manning does have appeal rights, but I'd say that just one upheld conviction will keep him in prison for the rest of his life.
As for Manning himself, I'm afraid that I don't have much sympathy for him-mostly because he knew the rules thoroughly, and the punishment as well.
Here's the Wikipedia article about him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning#Notes
That he took it upon himself to do this does not, though, give the government full options to punish him as an 'example' to others.
Manning, I rather believe, was pretty screwed up to begin with and this whole affair was probably one of the ways he thought he could get out of the military scot free. Sad to say, it wasn't.
He'll be in the military (not in uniform, though) for the rest of his life.
Edward Snowden should stay as far away as possible from the US-and for the rest of his life, as well.
We're in 'witchhunt' mode now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Government injustice
When you find out that your leaders are systematically lying to the public about what is happening in the war, and that they are complicit in the torture of innocent people, you have a choice; either "just follow orders", or abide by the pledge to protect the country from domestic enemies, up to and including POTUS.
Mr. Manning did the right thing. Let no good deed go unpunished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Government injustice
Lots of whistle blowers have been found innocent of all crimes. Why? Because they went through lengthy soul-searching, provided detailed support for their approach and how they kept their whistle blowing to evidence of the crime. In most cases, these people did not want any publicity, they just wanted the crimes to stop.
On the other hand, Manning frequently bragged about what he was doing in his blog and he talked to others about it. Did he really perform "due diligence" on 700,000 documents, or was he just interested in a "Guinness Book of World Records" release of sensitive information? While Manning sets himself up as a white knight on his charger, his behavior is that of a cocky hacker (he calls himself a hacktivist) putting one over on everybody.
Whistleblower? Not based on his behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Government injustice
Wait. What blog? He had no blog. He did not brag about it. The only person he spoke to was Adrian Lamo who turned him in. If you read the chats, Manning points out that he reached out to Lamo because he had no one else to talk about it with.
Where did you get your facts because they seem... well, not factual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Government injustice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Government injustice
You claimed he "frequently bragged about what he was doing in his blog" yet he had no blog. Describing himself as a hactivist in a single private online chat is entirely different from "frequently bragged about what he was doing in his blog."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Government injustice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Government injustice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Government injustice
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/05/bradley-manning-trial-jihrleah-showman_n_3391327 .html
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57345394/witness-manning-bragged-of-changing-history/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Government injustice
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/05/bradley-manning-trial-jihrleah-showman_n_3391327 .html
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57345394/witness-manning-bragged-of-changing-history/
Um. Two situations: one about statements made at cocktail parties having nothing to do with the release of the documents, and the other not so much a brag as a defense of why he was doing what he was doing. You've never made small talk "bragging" about something you're good at? Taking it entirely out of context is pretty ridiculous and shameful.
You falsely claimed that he bragged publicly "on his blog" about the leaks in an effort to claim he was a publicity hound. The truth appears to be completely different. He did not brag publicly. He had no blog.
You can admit that you were wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Government injustice
can you ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Government injustice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Government injustice
I did say I was wrong about the "blog." I guess you missed that.
Have I EVER bragged about something I am supposedly good at? Perhaps. Of course, I am not good at cracking passwords and dumping files I was contractually bound not to disclose to Wikileaks. Certainly, if I violated the conditions of my employment I sure as hell would not have been bragging about it. It would take a total moron to brag about that to anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Government injustice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Manning does have appeal rights
Spend the rest of his life in prison, we'll I guess he could of worked that one out as he was stealing the documents.
Unless he's a total idiot (might be).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Living in a Society of Fear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censors working overtime Masnick ??
Desperate much, or just don't like dissenting comments ?
Or you trying to keep TD "pure" ?
Not corrupted by truth and opinion,, !!!! LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Masnick is SO desperate now
Now he's 'moderating' posts, from specific people, not allowing them to be posted at all.
I guess he has lost trust in his team of CENSORS to do that job for him. Way to abuse censorship Masncik.. I am sure you are proud of your efforts..
It would be a shame if the issues were actually debated here, free from censorship that is..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick is SO desperate now
You are a dispicalble lying piece of Shit wanna-be Lawyer scum.
You make most other Lawyers look like paragons of truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How would you know this?
I know that there is no delay between posting and then doing a refresh and seeing all of my posts. In that process, there is no opportunity for anyone to moderate the post.
I haven't even seen any disappear.
So, again what is your proof that this is happening?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think one thing to remember about his time in prison is that most of his charges are concurrent, so at most he would serve maybe 60-80 years assuming his sentence wasn't reduced. Which I could easily see it being reduced in about ten or so years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All have God in them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]