To reveal them in the UCMJ...really...it's part of the Geneva Convention.

We signed it. At times I think the current brass wishes we never did

are 'quaint and obsolete'? No less than the former White House Counsel (and Attorney General) Alberto Gonzales was kind enough to inform us of this back in 2002.

Can't wait for the ICC to get involved...there are no statues of limitations.

how does that justify releasing all the other stuff?

were necessary? And why didn't Manning release Top Secret information, he did have access to it. But he didn't.

nt

prove that the government had repeatedly lied about Vietnam and that's not 'relevant' to Manning releasing more documents than those simply suggesting war crimes???

OK.

Ellsberg himself certainly thinks it relevant.

a military court will. and had manning released only evidence of war crimes he would probably have a better chance in that forum, and would certainly have a lot more sympathy among the public than he does now. fact is, he didn't even know what all he was releasing and what repercussions that could have and that is what makes him such an unsympathetic figure to many.

he needed to was 'irrelevant' to Manning releasing more than he needed to.

You said it was irrelevant; rather than concede your poor choice of words, you move the goal posts.

Ellsberg is as relevant to manning's guilt or innocence as is fdr, napoleon or carrot top.

direct bearing upon Manning and Wikileaks.

if so he needs new lawyers.

can re-litigate the Pentagon Papers at the same time we litigate Wikileaks. Since both Iraq and Vietnam were founded on webs of lies and willful chicanery, I can think of few witnesses that would be more fitting.

Bush Sr.'s declaration that we've "kicked the Vietnam syndrome" notwithstanding, Ellsberg has said we won't have gotten over Vietnam until a memorial is erected on the National Mall to the antiwar protesters.

undue command influence has already been wielded by the Commander in Chief is, well, let us say, quite unbecoming such a serious matter.

is weak.

... then yes.

a precedent the government wishes to overturn.

only materials classified 'Secret' and not those classified 'Top Secret.'

Hope I don't need to prove this with a link. (Google is your friend.) But let me know if I do.

I look forward to finding out who else is pulling information out of their ass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning

The decision to discharge him was revoked, and he started basic training again in January 2008. After graduating in April, he moved to Fort Huachuca, Arizona, where he trained as an intelligence analyst, receiving a TS/SCI security clearance (Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information). According to Nicks, this security clearance, combined with the digitization of classified information and the government's policy of sharing it widely, gave Manning access to an unprecedented amount of material. Nicks writes that he was reprimanded while at Fort Huachuca for posting three video messages to friends on YouTube, in which he described the inside of the "Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility" (SCIF) where he worked

Doesn't change the fact that he's no hero or whistleblower.

He did not have a TS/SCI at the time of the document dump. It had been suspended:

From:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/who-is-wikileaks-suspect-bradley-manning/2011/04/16/AFMwBmrF_print.html

I misunderstood the point you were trying to make.

Geneva Conventions), that treaty assumes the full force of the U.S. Constitution. (It's actually written into the Constitution in Article VI, Clause 2.)

So when someone commits a war crime by violating the Geneva Conventions, they are indeed committing a crime against the Constitution.

Civics 101.

Prove your assertion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2949880

You're at odds with over 200 years of Cosntitutional law, vis-a-vis the Supremacy Clause.

if it is a crime against the Geneva Conventions then it is a crime against the constitution. it IS that simple.

all treaties ratified by the senate and signed by the president become part of the constitution.

And to the sniveling little wussies, go to hell.

He deserves a few years in the brig.

the civilian leadership's decisions.

.

The US has whistle blower laws that he was legally obliged to obey. He has no valid excuse for not following US law instead of going straight to Julian Assange.

obligation to abide by those protections?

He would have been protected if he had simply followed the law. The key is that certain communications are protected and he cannot be punished for them. Funny things is, emails to Julian Assange are not on the list of protected communications. He could have turned to any member of Congress and he would not have been punished.

http://www.ig.navy.mil/complaints/Complaints%20%20%28Reprisal%20Military%20Whistleblower%20Protection%29.htm

that.

Why didn't Ellsberg do that? Manniing went to a well respected International News Organization, as did Ellsberg. Same thing happened with Ellsberg when the US Government tried to blame the NYT for publishing the leaks. The SC ruled against the US Government so apparently it is established that when the press publishes leaks they are doing what they are supposed to do. What makes the NYT any different from any other media outlet? The new media is just as legitimate now as TV became when it was new eg.

Wikileaks IS the new media, a multi-award winning news organization, still receiving awards for their work. Of course governments and banks and other organizations whose corruption was revealed by Wikileaks attempt to claim they are 'not the press'. No one supports that allegation who has an interest in the news media publishing facts.

Was anything published by Wikileaks, and then picked up by other major news organizations who worked with them, NOT a fact?

then you have a problem.

You have to try to follow the law. It at least allows you to say "the government ignored me so I had no choice but to turn over reams of information to Julian Assange."

Saying "they ignored Daniel Ellsberg 42 years ago so I never bothered to even try to follow the law" is not a particularly strong legal position.

He made no effort to follow the law. He is paying the price for that decision.

The SC ruling I referred to is still in effect. That would make it very current as far as I know. When you have to try to ignore a SC ruling, you really do have a problem.

it has absolutely nothing to say about Ellsberg's roles in the Pentagon Papers - it was all about prior restraint of the press by the government.

Ellsberg was indicted and faced charges under the Espionage Act of 1917 and other charges including theft and conspiracy, carrying a total maximum sentence of 115 years. The reason he got off was because of gross governmental misconduct and illegal evidence gathering - the FBI was illegally wiretapping him. The judge dismissed all charges because the government's case was so tainted by illegal actions as to be a miscarriage of justice. A proper prosecution could have led to conviction - the results of the trial say nothing about his guilt or innocence in the eyes of the law but rather they speak to his inability to get a fair trial.

to Ellsberg himself, even more so.

Manning was discovered due to an FBI sting operation. What is different about that and what happened to Ellsberg?

The real reason why the charges were dropped was because of the revelations of how corruptly the whole war, which was extremely unpopular by then, was conducted, the lies, the profiteering etc. To put someone in jail who was trying to expose the lies and corruption doesn't make sense in any civilized society especially when the real criminals remain free.

Only in extremely oppressive societies do people like Manning who tried to right some egregious wrongs done by his Government, even go on trial. Some 'laws' need to be broken when it becomes clear that War Criminals, eg, will not be subjected to any law.

If we are to stick to the law so rigidly that we turn away from crimes then we need to reassess what was done to those who refused to break the law in Germany. We did not accept that excuse. We still despise those who ignored the war crimes and refused to speak out against them.

And don't bother with the Godwin's law nonsense. WW11 was the reason for the International laws, most of them can be credited to the US and its allies, that we now claim to respect. Those laws do not permit any excuses for participating in war crimes, either by action or silence.

But if bad laws are more important than honor and integrity in this country now, then we are truly lost, as other nations have been in the past where 'the law' was the argument for every atrocity committed. It was 'legal' and it was 'illegal' to expose the crimes.

There was no sting operation. Adrian Lamo went to the FBI with copies of his chats with Manning. Manning was arrested days later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning#Manning_and_Adrian_Lamo

Ellsberg turned himself in - he was not entrapped or the object of a sting operation. This is what he had to say:



Manning could learn a lot from Ellsberg on how to handle himself with dignity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg

for blowing whistles. He did not. They're clear, and he was aware of them. They are taught to everyone who holds a security clearance. He chose to bypass those pathways, which include alternative military agencies outside of his immediate chain, plus any congress member. He did not follow the UCMJ, which he also took an oath to follow. He did not explore the legitimate paths for his disclosure, but decided to take a path that is distinctly prohibited. He signed papers that were also an oath in that regard, as well.

go to Congress? Why did the SC rule against the US Government on the issue of the press having the right to publish whistle blower leaks?

And how do you know that Manning did not try to get to Congress members? He did go to DC, were you aware of that?

War crimes are far more serious violations of our laws than the method by which they are revealed. Yet no war crimes have yet been investigated, at least not in this country. They are however, being investigated in other countries whose citizens were victims of them.

He did not. He didn't follow the alternative paths spelled out in the UCMJ. And he knew about them. All military personnel are trained in them, and those with security clearances get even more training. He cannot use the excuse of not knowing about those alternative pathways. He knew. They were part of his oath. He did not keep his oath.

If he did follow those alternative pathways, that information will appear in his trial. I do not expect to hear that.

He engaged in civil disobedience, which always comes with a risk of prosecution. He is being prosecuted.

He's brave, but violated his oath. It is that simple. The oath specifically includes the UCMJ.

go to his superior officers with the Collateral Damage video and was blown off.

he released far more than just the Collateral Damage video so a defense of "I tried to tell my superiors and was blown off" defense will not work with the court I am willing to bet.
His best bet is to try and get a plea deal in for 10 - 20 years by admitting to the mistake he made which was to release all those totally unrelated but classified documents and shoot for a few years in jail counting the time served in the brig towards it.

to his superior officers. Only when he saw no investigation would occur nor even interest be evinced by said chain of command did he contact Assange.

Manning did not go 'straight to Julian Assange.'

the law said he could have gone to any member of Congress and not be punished. He could have gone to the IG.

He made a poor choice.

mankind, not in the interests of American empire. I'd hardly call that 'poor.'

I am sure it gives him much comfort.

some of his actions (having pled guilty to 10 lesser counts in February, IIRC). He's manned up, unlike the war criminals in the past administration(s).

explain why that is the case? There is no question that war crimes were committed, Cheney has openly admitted to ordering them and has stated publicly that he 'would do it again'. Yet he has not even been brought in for questioning.

What is a worse crime in your opinion? Reporting a war crime, regardless of how you do it, or ordering war crimes??

In the case of Manning, it was because he ignored the legal methods established specifically for cases like him.

But he went to his superiors and they did nothing...why would he believe that the IG or any member of Congress would do anything?

We're not talking about a soldier with experience, this was a kid who probably thought that since his immediate chain of command failed to move on it...he couldn't trust the IG or even a member of Congress!

Besides, he pleaded guilty to enough charges to do 20 years...but the military wants its pound of flesh because the command was shown to be complicit with covering up alleged war crimes, and want him put away for the rest of his life!

We can sit here and play the coulda, woulda, shoulda game all day long, but none of us are Manning and don't know what he was thinking or even what he was dealing with.

He made a decision based on what he was experiencing, not on what we think he was dealing with...

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/04/6-2nd-brigade-combat-team-15-6-investigation.pdf

And it was found that the crew acted within the ROE established at that time.

the events in the "Collateral Murder" video had already been investigated by the army, and found not to be a war crime.

One of the people had an AK-47. Wikileaks helpfully point it out in the edited video they released. That makes the attack legal.

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt, and pretend it was a crime. The next step for Manning should have been to turn the information over to the Inspector General. And if Manning still believed the IG would do nothing, he could turn it over to any member of Congress. Are you arguing Bernie Sanders would cover up a war crime?

And even if we pretend these alternate routes did not exist, your argument could only justify leaking one document. How 'bout the other 699,999?

He retrieved the info from the JAG directory, which means it was already under investigation by the Army and his Superiors would have seen and known that. Therefore no investigation was warranted by them. After local JAG reviews it, findings are sent to higher headquarters, and that was a combined services Command. Meaning that it was possible to go to a Navy JAG, or Air Force, ETC. Those reports are also subject to Audit by the IG and they report it to Congress. So after multiple levels of investigation this E-4 with zero combat experience from the comfort of his air conditioned office space on the FOB is the resident expert you want to hang your hat on.

BTW was this before or after his mental break down where they found him in the fetal position crying. Goes to mental stability and judgment.

Secondly, lots of people are saying that he did this because of what he saw and witnessed. He did neither, he was an arm chair quarterback FOBBIT that sat back and second guessed the life and death decisions of people who were on the front lines. He watched some video tapes and instantly became an expert in urban warfare and the Rules of Engagement from the comfort of his cubicle.
Not only did he betray his oath, worse he second guessed and betrayed his fellow soldiers that were in harms way. Believing the worst in them and not the best.

He had an obligation both to protect the classified documents and information of the country to the best of his ability, AND he had the obligation to try to see the wrongdoing addressed.

There were two options open to him to do that. He refused to use either of them

#1 - The various Inspector Generals

and

#2 - Reporting suspected wrongdoing to a member of congress, such as a Kucinich or Bernie Sanders.

Manning's supporters claim he did, but he did not. For example, "Collateral Murder" was legal. Wikileaks helpfully pointed out the guy with an AK-47, which made the attack legal.

The fact that the attack was legal should be a reason to oppose war. But it doesn't make Manning's leak legal.

In addition, Manning leaked an enormous number of documents that did not contain anything remotely close to being a war crime. Such as Castro's favorite brand of cigar.

I think you're manufacturing stuff that has no basis in fact. Assange conceded that it appeared one of the figures int he video might be carrying an RPG (NOT AN AK-47). So I'd dearly love to see the Wikileaks' notation of an AK-47, if it exists.

legal, why did the US Government refuse to hand it over to Reuters to demonstrate how legal the killing of their two employees was? If they had nothing to worry about, why were they hiding the evidence that would have cleared them of the allegations being made?

Manning is not the one being 'supported'. The Rule of Law is what I support. And when a war is illegal, when people as high in office as the POTUS and his VP lie to get this country into a disastrous war that kills thousands of our troops and countless numbers of innocent civilians, THEY are the ones who should be on trial and anyone who tries to expose their crimes is a hero, and every death that occurs as a result of war started by lies, is a war crime.

Had this information become public while Bush was still in office, not one Democrat would be doing anything other than calling Manning and Wikileaks heroes.

hoping to bury the info because few people like to admit that they made a mistake especially because such a video could very easily destroy any chance for future promotions for those involved.
Problem sabrina for Manning is that he didnt just release this video but that he also released thousands and thousands of other unrelated classified documents and that is not going to help his case sadly.

were Reuters employees covering the war, the video should have been handed over to their families and to Reuters as requested. I agree with you that the military probably viewed the killings of those people as an 'error' they were embarrassed by. Or maybe they knew that what they did was wrong. Several soldiers other than Manning, have stated that these kinds of killings were 'par for the course' but were rarely publicized.

Two children were wounded in that horrible event, another apparently 'common occurance', the deaths of children. Kevin Benderman eg, another soldier who refused to ignore these war crimes, refused to return to Iraq after being ordered to shoot at children among other things, which he refused to do. People do not have to lose their humanity because they are given orders to do something that they know is wrong. People like Benderman and Manning are the conscience of this country who refute the notion that it is impossible to refuse to follow orders they know are wrong. We are supposed to exonerate those who 'are just following orders' AND apparently we exonerate those, like Cheney, who give the orders.

We have to start somewhere to end these atrocities. And it will take a lot more Mannings and Bendermans to make those changes, along with public opposition to the crimes being committed in our names. No one is obliged to follow legal orders if those orders require committing war crimes. That was established after WW11.

Manning was very disturbed when

Alot of us are however pointing out the fact that he did not need to provide the hundreds of thousands of unrelated classified documents to wikileaks that he did if his intent was purely to expose a war crime.
Documents related directly to the incident? Ok.
But documents that dont even discuss it? It just doesnt make any sense for him to have done.

Because the video contains a great deal of information beyond who was shot. For example, everyone knows a lot more about the optics in Apache helicopters now. You can calculate the distance the bullets flew from the time between the "bang" and it hitting. From that, you can determine things like the resolution of the optics.


Because they had already conducted an investigation and released a report to the public. That report matched the events in the video.


Then you'd want Manning in jail. The attack was legal. Even if it wasn't, the law provides methods for Manning to report the illegality. Either to his chain of command, or bypassing his chain of command. Manning chose wikileaks instead.

And that's just the things that could be war crimes. There's tons of information Manning released that are not about Iraq, or any war crimes. Again, what is the objection to the US knowing Castro's favorite brand of cigar? Manning released that. What was the crime he was fighting?

It should also be noted that the "war crimes" justification did not come out until Manning had an attorney. Manning never mentioned war crimes in the chat logs.


Sorry, no. The war was legal. Congress authorized it. That makes the war legal. You can make a case that people should be prosecuted for lying to Congress, but that wouldn't make the war illegal under US law.


Manning released exactly zero documents discussing the run-up to the war. So he did not expose any of "their crimes".


Hi, good to meet you. I'm a Democrat. And if Manning had released these documents while Bush was in office, I would not be calling him a hero.

and it contains ways for anyone in the military to disclose information outside of the immediate chain of command, both to a congressmember and to other military authorities. By bypassing those legitimate routes, he violated the very oath you quoted.

I'm sure that MAJ Hasan's conscience told him that he was doing the right thing as well. Doesn't mean that he doesn't deserve to hang over it.

I would almost have an ounce of respect for him if he had the testicular fortitude to accept the consequences of his actions but at this point he just shows himself to be the cowardly little failure that he had been during his time in the Army.

No take backs.... You want to influence world policy and make a big deal? Well you got it fella.... Deal with the consequences of your actions like a man.

Manning violated the rules and regulations regarding maintaining secrets.

He had other options besides publicly revealing them.

He needs to be tried, and then a jury (or in this case, a UCMJ Judge) decide his guilt or innocence, and the proper punishment for his crime.

That is just how it is.

And have lived in conflicted awareness since.

If Bradley Manning wanted to claim "whistleblower" status, he should have followed established procedure for doing so. This does not change the facts that the US government has a hidden agenda when classifying communications. This also doesn't mean that Manning acted outside of the purest motives.

War crimes have been committed since war was fought. War is the crime. The tragedies that unfold from this activity are innumerable. That we have accepted them up to this point makes me question the sincerity of current statements about Manning's exposure.

If we're going to protest war crimes, let's do so completely, and accurately. We have to go back a long way. And point the finger of justice to the very underpinnings of America's creation, and sustainment.

WAR IS THE CRIME. EOM

and that forces within our government and economy seek opportunities for war to protect and increase profit while ignoring/accepting the realities of those innumerable tragedies is what is most detestable to me

I'm sure they'd have been just as happy to circulate the embarrassing material.

But, they break their promises to us all the time and don't give a damn. I gave that same oath and they sent me overseas, not to fight a threat to my country, but to be a mercenary for the oil companies and defense contractors. So, why should they care about a soldier that stands in the way of their war crimes? Everyone that isn't for them is easily dealt with. And even if you're for them, you're expendable.

glad to see you made it through their meat grinder.