I hope he is convicted
I hope this traitor is convicted and spends the next 100 years in prison.
December 16 has been named as the date for the first hearing in the military trial for PFC Bradley Manning, a mere 18 months after he was first arrested. The date for the Article 32 hearing for Manning, who was incarcerated on suspicion of being Wikileaks’ source for the “diplomatic cables”, was announced by defence attorney …
I hope this traitor is convicted and spends the next 100 years in prison.
"...government’s lawyers have magnanimously said they won’t seek the death penalty..."
Kindly note that there hasn't been a *military* execution on ANY charge in the US 'since 1961. Bringing up the death penalty for a relatively low-level act of treason, when much more serious traitors have NOT been executed kind smacks of drama-mongering, doesn't it?
Doesn't make good headlines though. These days even Auntie Beeb is preoccupied with the task of constructing tabloid one liners. Fortunately for me I am a good cook and the taste and smell of my labours destroys these things. :-)
But it's America, he'll probably get 750 years for each offence, why give a death penalty when you can just lock up a person for the rest of their natural life? Unless of course he turns undead then he's still looking at several centuries locked up.
No, unfortunately they have to say this...
There's this guy Assange who's lawyers keep trotting out this death penalty thing everytime he faces an extradition hearing in the UK where he's fighting an EAW from Sweden where he faces the charges of rape.
Because the death penalty is still on the books and is still an option for more heinous crimes... they have to keep reminding the fodder on the left that there is no death penalty issue in this case. That 's already off the table.
@David Webb ; Hardly.
Have you looked up US Military sentencing? They don't screw around, but they also don't pile-on. He'll get hammered - no two ways about that - but it won't be vindictive. After all, he's being tried under the UCMJ - Not by some vote-hungry politician pretending to be a lawyer.
@Ian Michael Gumby ; Assange is a whinging coward, and I find it sad that folks feel obliged to respond to his posturing and silly games. Especially since Sweden != USA. By and large, the Swedes are pretty damn civilized - I'd happily say they're more so than us over here (Not that I'd want to be a Swede, mind you - It's fun to be a barbarian!).
But... I see your point.
Which traitor? PFC Manning or that vicious little dobber Adrian Lamo who turned him in?
Personally, I wouldn't consider PFC Manning a traitor, even if it is found/determined he was the source of the leak.
He, as well as all others have a humanitarian obligation to leak or report the kinds of abuses we saw in the Collateral Damage video.
I also wonder if this trial appearance has anything to do with the petition on that wethepeople.gov site.
Clearly you're one of the clueless who don't understand the world you live in... here. Let me make it simple for you...
Manning allegedly had broken the law when he allegedly stole classified material and provided it to Wikileaks.
That he violated his military oath qualifies him as a traitor.
What you saw on Assange's Collateral Damage video was an edited copy. Now why do you think he would do that?
Do you actually understand what is meant by RoE (Rules of Engagement)?
I hope the PFC is given a full medical before trial with a view to establishing what horrors (if any) he might have been subjected to while under containment by US military.
It probably is same ol' same ol' with PFCs taking the grunt while dereliction of duty lies with the higher ranking?
(If so I guess that will never, ever get to court?)
The military have played all their little mind games, trying to break him down with ridiculous "suicide watch" behaviour etc, now it's time to find out how weak their case really is.
(PS to the El Reg Mods: The first post in this thread has presumably been marked for deletion so I can't downvote it or reply to it, but it still appears at the moment...)
Oh dear, there are none so blind as those wilfully too stupid to see.
"....ridiculous "suicide watch" behaviour...." Still peddling that old pile of male bovine manure? Shall we re-cap, just so you can get some perspective? Manning had already been considered a a potential suicide risk BEFORE he was even suspected of being the leaker. His superior officer ordered his personal weapon be taken away to reduce the risk of Manning blowing his own brains out. Comprendez? Suicide watch has set procedures, it wasn't made up for Manning, and it was intended to keep him from harming himself. Get over your petty paranoia.
Taking a gun from someone is reasonable if you think they are suicidal.
Depriving them of sleep is not.
Are you suicidal? No? Ok.
(Waits 15 minutes...)
Are you suicidal now? No? Ok.
(Waits another 15 minutes...)
Are you suicidal yet?
(Waits another 15 minutes...)
Now imagine keeping that up for a day, two days, three days...
If you weren't suicidal at the start, you'd sure as hell be thinking about it after a few days.
"Are you suicidal? No? Ok....." Except that DIDN'T HAPPEN. The guards simply had to check if he was OK, they did not have to and did not wake him every fifteen minutes. The only people repeating that nonsense are either guillible or are herding the sheeple.
"....Depriving them of sleep is not." Yeah, and where does it say he was deprived of sleep? I mean, where in a sensible piece not scrawled out for the sheeple? The rules are quite simple - the guard has to check every fifteen minutes, they do not wake him up every fifteen minutes UNLESS they have a reason to think he has endangered himself. Please try and grasp that simple point before bleating any further rubbish.
My mistake, it wasn't every fifteen minutes, it was every *five* minutes that the guards were supposed to check on him and they were authorised to wake him to check he was ok any time at which they couldn't see his face.
You can find this information here: http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/manning-removed-from-two-day-suicide-watch-attorney-files-complaint-calls-action-punitive
"....they were authorised to wake him to check he was ok any time at which they couldn't see his face....." Yes, which completely misses the simple fact you simply can't say how many times they actually did wake him. For all you know, he could have got an uninterrupted eight hours every night. Please post some proof in the form of a record (and the Marine guards will have logged every time they had to wake him) of how many times Manning was awkened. I think you'll find the logs were made available to the prosecution but - strangely, eh? - they have never been keen to back up their claims that Manning was constantly woken.
I especially like the hysterical tone of the webpage you linked to: ".....He was forced to sit in essential blindness...." If his vision was that bad without glasses he would never have been accepted for service! The page is just more bleating, completly ignoring the crimes Manning is charged with and the simple fact - HIS ACTIONS PUT HIM WHERE HE IS NOW.
No, I can't say *exactly* how many times he was woken, however quoting from the New Statesman:
"At night, Manning is stripped to his underwear and has to sleep under blankets that he says give him carpet burn. He is usually woken several times throughout the night by guards."
Now are you saying that the New Statesman Magazine is just another "bleater"?
You claim that "I think you'll find the logs were made available to the prosecution", yet despite searching, I can't find any factual basis for this and, in any case, why would the *prosecution* want to see the logs? It's is the *defence* who need them!
What I have found, however, is that "A Freedom of Information Act request for documents on accused whistleblower to WikiLeaks Pfc. Bradley Manning’s treatment at Quantico Marine brig, filed by POLITICO, reveals on multiple occasions Manning was recommended for removal from “prevention of injury” (POI) status by psychiatrists and psychologists but was not removed."
So medical officers and doctors said that Manning wasn't a suicide risk, yet those who were holding him decided to keep him on that status anyway.
Oh and as regards "If his vision was that bad without glasses he would never have been accepted for service!" a little bit of searching has found that bad eyesight does not preclude someone from joining the US Army as long as their *corrected* vision with glasses passes the required standard. But let me guess, you don't need glasses, because if you did you'd understand what it's like to have everything more than a short distance in front of you rendered as a vague blur.
And finally as for "HIS ACTIONS PUT HIM WHERE HE IS NOW", might I remind you of the principle of presumption of innocence?
"....No, I can't say *exactly* how many times he was woken...." But, let me guess, it won't stop you repeating the exaggeration on, and on, and on? What a surprise!
".....He is usually woken several times throughout the night by guards...." Note the New Statesman doesn't try and claim he was woken every five minutes. Oh, hold on a sec, let me clarify - everyone with a clue, that can see past their political blinkers, will have noticed the magazine article you linked to DOES NOT say he was woken every five minutes. It's fun when you sheeple debunk yourselves! As to being woken "several times through out the night", that does not even come close to sleep deprivation. So, seeign as we have finally shown the complete failure of the rediculous "woken every five minutes" manle bovine manure, will you finally admit it was complete claptrap, served up for and repeated by the sheeple? I doubt it.
".....It's is the *defence* who need them!...." Anything made available to the prosecution is made available to the defence, especially as the prosecution's used the logs to rebutt the rediculous claims of Manning's defence team that he was being "tortured".
".....on multiple occasions Manning was recommended for removal from “prevention of injury” (POI) status by psychiatrists and psychologists but was not removed....." <Yawn> Been over that non-argument already - the final sign-off comes from the responsible officer, it would have been his career on the line if Manning had committed suicide after being taken off suicide watch, so it is not surprising - given the hysterical coverage given to the case - that the officer played safe and waited for the Whitehouse to take the decision out of his hands. You really don't have a clue how people think, do you?
".....as long as their *corrected* vision with glasses passes the required standard...." OK, just stop and think about that for a second (I know, probably wasting time suggesting you try a little original thought) - if his vision was so bad without glasses that he would be practically blind without them, there is NO WAY they coulf have lifted his vision to the point where it was acceptable. Glasses assist in correcting impaired vision, they don't work miracles. It is just more hyperventilating over-exaggeration, and you can't see through it because you are so wrapped up in hating.
".....might I remind you of the principle of presumption of innocence....." Whatever, I know it would be a waste of time trying to get you to possibly consider what he has been charged with are treasonous acts.
Taxi! Follow those goalposts...
You said "For all you know, he could have got an uninterrupted eight hours every night", but when I cite proof that he did not, you dodge the issue and try to ignore it claiming that I have "debunked" myself. As for it not being sleep deprivation, let me wake you "several times during the night" and we'll see how non-sleep-deprived you feel the next morning (and the next when I do it again...)
You said "I think you'll find the logs were made available to the prosecution", but I can't find any proof of that other than your claim. You could have backed this up with a cite, but instead you again dodge the issue saying "Anything made available to the prosecution is made available to the defence" (I could point to numerous cases of miscarriages of justice where this has not happened, but I expect you to ignore that too)
As for Manning not being taken off suicide watch, your argument appears to be that you consider "cover your ass" to be more important than respecting someone's rights.
Oh and finally I have severe astigmatism. My eyes are -10 dioptres on the right and -11 on the left which technically means I am classed as "partially sighted". Yet I am sitting here, typing this with my glasses on and able to see perfectly clearly, however were I to take my glasses off I would be unable to see anything clearly more than about three inches away.
So again when you claim "there is NO WAY they coulf have lifted his vision to the point where it was acceptable " you demonstrate that you have no idea what you're talking about.
And finally you seem to think that an accusation of treason is sufficient to justify pre-emptively punishing someone before any conviction has been made by a court of law.
As with the other thread, feel free to have the last word.
".....but when I cite proof that he did not..." What proof? Even the mag article you link to can't say how many times he was woken! If that's you're level of proof required then please go join the Manning prosecuiton and we'll get it all over and done with in no time!
"....As for it not being sleep deprivation, let me wake you "several times during the night" and we'll see how non-sleep-deprived you feel the next morning...." I'd be fine, thanks. I'm a light sleeper, I tend to wake every time the wife rolls over, or the cat wanders into the room, or the dog moves in her basket. Some people are just better with coping with those minor troubles in life, I guess.
".....respecting someone's rights...." And here we get to the crux of the matter - apart from the fact that you failed to prove any of Manning's rights have been even lightly bruised, you just can't grasp that Manning gave up certain rights when he signed up. He is under arrest, charged with treason, in a military prison, not daycare.
".....typing this with my glasses on...." Manning had no need for typing vision in his cell, he didn't have a PC or typewriter, you buffoon. So, do you keep your glasses on 24-hours a day? I bet not. Fail, fail, fail!
".....you demonstrate that you have no idea what you're talking about....." Really? Please go and look up the physical requirments for US forces entry. For a start, you need to have 20/20 vision in the main eye and at least 20/40 in the off eye after correction - there is no way you could have vision so bad as to be "blind" and get it corrected to those levels.
"....you seem to think that an accusation of treason is sufficient to justify pre-emptively punishing...." He is not being punished, he is simply being treated to EXACTLY THE SAME RULES AND PROCEDURES as any other military prisoner int he same brig. Your inabaility to see that speaks volumes of your complete naivety. But don't worry, I predict he will lose his case and then he will be "punished".
You are the living epitomy of denial.
@AC: "I hope this traitor is convicted and spends the next 100 years in prison"
I can't tell if you are an attention seeking fool or an attention seeking troll, but I don't really care, your kind (a very much minority in society) are the enemy of us all. Its the elected representatives who lie to the electorate who are guilty of treason against their own people and country. Manning's bravery proved our leaders liars and its interesting how some like you AC who do all they can to deny this and vilify him and demonize him.
We need to stop allowing and accepting our elected representatives lying to us all. They work for us. Plus any fool knows all other countries had access to Manning's level of information. Therefore as all countries already knew what was said then the only people in the dark were all of us, the lied to electorate, the real people secrets are used against (because that is how power is wielded by manipulating the masses to believe in the words of the leaders). That is why the politicians will want him metaphorically destroyed to send a warning to all to never expose them as liars again. That is a dark day for all of us, as we watch this show trial finally getting into action.
Or AC, have you not been paying attention to world news for the past few years which shows what our leaders are like!
Hear, hear. +1.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
-- Joseph Goebbels
You mean law abiding citizens who disdain disclosure of top secret documents that endanger the welfare of all Americans and many other countries, is bad? When you take the oath and then turn on your country you deserve the death penalty. Prison is too good for Manning.
"your kind (a very much minority in society)". Likely wrong. Quite likely a majority see him as a traitor with our without a trial, and will happily supply the gasoline and matches.
The majority don't really want to know of the huge holes in military secrecy. They'd rather continue with the more comfortable delusion that US, and its military, is all mighty and will drive off the Chinese when they come calling for their money.
Manning has opened a can that most US voters would probably prefer to have kept shut.
Patriotism is for suckers. It's just a way for politicians to manipulate people so their friends can make money.
Wave the flag, go shoot those Vietnamese/Arabs/enemies this year!
"Endanger the welfare of all Americans and many other countries"
Yeah, the fallout from the leaks has cost so many lives. Oh, what? None? How about bringing the perps exposed by the leaks to justice?
If Bradley Manning was responsible for leaking the information he should be court marshaled, and sentences for the maximum time under the law. Manning is credited with leaking the video, but decided that wasn't enough.
Manning is a member of the military which is under the Department of Defense. He is also being accused of is leaking diplomatic cables which are from U.S. Department of State. The fact that Manning is from a different department, makes it clear that he stole them, that is if he was the person who leaked the cables.
The documents in question has very limited relationship to elected officials in America, if any. Information in the cables have been claimed to have brought about the Arab Spring. None, of those Arab leaders were elected by American citizens. Including in those documents were observations and opinions of leaders in countries other than America. One such document caused the resignation of one diplomat who had a harsh criticism of one foreign leader. The documents cover a wide range of topics as they are communications between diplomats and the State Department.
The presence of Manning as a hero is nothing but a lie. The worse case scenario of Manning is that he didn't release the information, and just an unfortunate victim of mistake identity. That is it was someone else who released the information.
I am all for the leaking of information that clearly shows that a crime has been committed, or that we have been lied to. There is an importance in that, and it is part of the system.
The elected officials are accountable to all their citizens. This doesn't mean that they must listen to every single citizen, but they must enact policies that are beneficial to the citizens as a whole.
The leaking of 250,000 cables were the purpose to embarrass. Not in the sense to hamper the operation of government, but to cause difficulties for America when dealing with other countries.
There are freedom of information acts that need to be updated, but that is the responsibility of our elected officials. Laws should also be enacted to protect whistle blowers. That is people who have witness crimes.
Government agencies should be able to deal with protecting whistle blowers, and assisting in any investigation. They should be able to punish individuals who leak information where there are no clear crimes, or circumvent laws relating to whistle blowing. The public should be able to get access to such crimes through the freedom of information act, also to the laws that govern whistle blowing.
So he's a traitor to my government, which breaks UN treaties re: spying, murders foreign civilians and covers it up, props up corrupt dictators, and subverts foreign democracy.
We desperately need more "traitors" like him... that is, if he's guilty, which hasn't been proven...
Classified information will be available on wikileaks the day after....
Only if you're stupid enough to pay for it through A$$nut's paywall. Please don't forget that A$$nut's "nble intent" is using your faux outrage to line his own pocket.
Presumably "aiding the enemy"carries with it a large burden of proof - although, this being the US military, a goat looking at him funny could probably constitute "proof". Theft of public propery records could probably stick, along with computer fraud (which seems to constitute almost anything - typing in a user name incorrectly could probably be argued as "fraud") but they're both white collar crimes, hardly things many people will get in a flap about - and how do they reconcile the fact that they're *public* records with the claim that he's "publishing intelligence information on the internet knowing it would be accessible to the enemy"? Surely the fact that they're public records makes them accessible in the first place? Not to mention the fact that he wasn't the one that published the records on the net anyway...
Part of me thinks their best chance of actually doing anything/making an example of him relied on quickly punishing the guy - now that 18 months have passed and american's aren't being blown up left right and centre, nor is Arabic compulsory in US schools, people are (rightfully) left wondering how any of this leak has made any difference at all. And the fact is that it hasn't.
Luckily the military doesn't have to worry about facts - just wave an american flag, flap about some picture of a eagle drawn by a 5 year old whose father died in Iraq and you can more or less get rid of anyone you want.
Enemy of America. You have been warned.
Sweden went on the hit list with Ikea. If that place isn't a crime against civilization, ...
You are forgetting, the main case against Manning just needs to show he broke his military oath and he wilfully acted in violation of the security procedures inherent with his position. The rest (Espionage Act bits) is more about tying him to Wikileaks and thus to A$$nut. The reason it has taken so long to come to trial is the prosecution wanted to get evidence of communications with Wikileaks prior to the act, so they can show Wikileaks (and hopefully A$$nut) were not the surprised beneficiaries of some spontaneous act, but planned the act with Manning. The real target here is Wikileaks and A$$nut, Manning is just collateral damage caused by his own petulance and desire for attention.
You leek information, some of it might be of really bad things your employer did, but some of it, you as an individual of relatively low rank have no full understanding of the full implications. Sometimes you dont have the full picture. Sometimes the information could be used to put together details that could endanger other projects. Also, any organisation out there does some really embarrassing things, some of them very bad. I believe these things should be addressed, they need to be taken care of internally and should there be legal implications, only the people who have to be legally involved should get involved. An issue can be addressed without making a mockery of an entire nation. Leaking confidential information is an act of treason, even if that information is of things you believe are horrible things your organisation has done.
Let's not forget that an army should act as a source of national pride and as a symbol of your countries strength as well as many other critical roles that require a strong reputation to maintain. So leaking such information does more harm than good. If the army messes up, it needs be dealt with swiftly, decisively AND DISCREETLY. No need to make the entire country look bad!
I am an Arab and the leaked information shows some very serious abuses of my fellow Arabs, yet I still found the act of leaking confidential military information a treasonous act. Many people are happy enough living in an illusion of peace and security, all you do by stirring up the put is create more tension, stress and possibly conflict. Besides, do we really need to further fuel the hatred that drives suicide bombers?
Hilmi, let me ask you something. What do you think is more likely to fuel Muslim hatred of the secular West?
1) The West treating atrocities committed against Muslims by its soldiers as crimes and punishing those responsible,
2) The West covering up atrocities committed against Muslims by its soldiers, pretending no crime has been committed, and punishing those responsible for revealing their deception?
It's a sad state of affairs that I even have to ask this question. However, it's what happens when two sides in a conflict are as bad as the other and one wants to seize the moral high ground.
I'm all for punishing atrocities WITHOUT making a public debacle out of it!
People have enough hatred and fear and stress as it is, we do not need to create yet another bogey man for people to fear. Out of an army of 10's of thousands, or maybe 100's of thousands, a few irresponsible people commit atrocities and we demonize the entire army and the nation behind it? That's what happens when you publicize the few bad instances versus the hundreds of good things done. These bad apples can be punished severely, but it does not need to be made public to further fuel the anger and frustration some people feel.
Demonisation of an entire group based on the actions of a few is much less likely to happen when the group in question deals with its own errant members. Not every Catholic priest is a paedophile, in fact very few are, but the whole Catholic Church is demonised for that reason because they conceal the facts and protect the criminals. If they instead excommunicated those priests and turned them over to the authorities, they would be largely immune to such criticism as they would have demonstrated that they don't want such people in their midst.
There will always be bad apples in any group - there's no sense in denying it. That's why it's important to send a public message that you won't tolerate them.
>Its the elected representatives who lie to the electorate who are guilty of treason against their own people and country<
Also, why are all governments permitted to keep state secrets, but we, the people, are not?
Best of British luck to you PFC Manning, hope it's not too much of a kangaroo court.
Also also, all those commenting on how bad he is and how good the US government are, appear to be signing off as anonymous; don't you know your government want to make that particular privilege (Prive: private, Lege: law) illegal for you.
"....which showed a helicopter attack in Baghdad in 2007 targeting unarmed civilians...." The crew of Crazyhorse 1-8 believed they were attacking armed militia moving into position to attack US troops on the ground who were conducting anti-militia operations in the area. As it turned out, two of the group attacked were carrying weapons (an AK47 and an RPG-7), and the Reuters TV crew were mistaken for an anti-tank missile crew. At all times, the chopper crew followed the rules of engagement and got clearance to fire from a senior officer. Please at least try and get the basics right.
"....which showed a helicopter attack in Baghdad in 2007 targeting civilians, 2 of whom were armed, ...."
Just following orders! So that's all right then.
They were not unarmed, as stated in the article. It also did not set the context that the armed group were moving towards US soldiers which the chopper crew were protecting. Would you like me to draw you a diagram, in crayon perhaps?
Rules of engagement are drawn up by lawyers, not troops on the ground (or in Apaches). They are based on political guidelines drawn up by civil servants and politicians. They are balanced with international law to ensure they are legally in-line with international treaties. They are set so that troops can protect themsleves without unnecessarily endangering themselves or others. Troops that break the RoE are subject to military law as well as civil law, including trial for murder. Troops do have a right to protect themsleves and their fellow troops. But expecting you to know that would probably be asking far too much.
This man should be praised for doing the right thing!
Instead the confused yanks are condeming the man for "showing them up" for what they are.
It'll be the republicans stirring the pot again, like a bunch of witches.
Immoraility 100% ; sanity 0%
As trolling efforts go, that was plain embarrassing! I'm gonna have to report you to the union.
"This man should be praised for doing the right thing!...." I'm guessing your definition of "right thing" is shaped purely by your politics, and has no knowledge of the military laws that Manning agreed to obey and then broke?
".....It'll be the republicans stirring the pot again...." Oh, come on, even a child troll should be able to do better than that! It's so easily debunked (Manning arrested May 2010, Obama inaugerated January 2009......) as to be laughably feeble. If that's your best effort you might as well give up now.
Sung by a fellow american