Feeds

back to article Wikileaker Bradley Manning pleads not guilty to 'aiding the enemy'

After over 1,000 days of solitary confinement in a military prison, Private First Class Bradley Manning finally got his day in court, and he pleaded not guilty to the most serious charge brought against him. Manning, 25, pleaded guilty to 10 charges that he misused and transmitted classified information – which could net him 20 …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Big Brother

Define "enemy" - and no, "who we say is the enemy" doesn't count.

Though I don't agree with what he did, that charge seems over the top (not that I expect any less from the government). I also have to give him credit for admitting guilt on the other charges.

12
6
Silver badge
Black Helicopters

Well, from this case we can conclude that the US defines 'the enemy' as:

"The whole world".

26
5
Bronze badge

Re: Well, from this case we can conclude that the US defines 'the enemy' as:

Or maybe even: Anyone who disagreed with the decision of an individual or individuals in power

(It all looks KKK to me)

8
5
Headmaster

> who we say is the enemy doesn't count.

I rather think it does count you know.

Historically one of the major functions of government has been to decide who is the enemy and to organise fighting wars against them.

Perhaps you meant something on the lines of "who we *didn't* say was the enemy doesn't count"?

4
4
Bronze badge
Thumb Up

Re: > who we say is the enemy doesn't count.

"Historically one of the major functions of government has been to decide who is the enemy and to organise fighting wars against them."

Well, that is an "All enemies must die" approach, which will only leave peculiar "friends". But, I hope you mean "...*_hostile_* enemies and to organize...".

He should be punished accordingly because you are clearly never under the impression that this behavior is non-punishable by death, in fact you know it is. Like anything else for better or worse, when you join in, you also join the rules. He won't get life, but I hope it's up there. I don't want to sound like a hate monger, but we know we can't have this going on in our government, there is places (eg. journalism), but not in government.

The enemy bit is tiring, to see my government try to save face in this manner is just old hat. The only enemy you could reasonably and logically find would be potential enemies, and what is the head count of Earth currently? Of course, the way my government *recently* behaves, maybe the purpose of the behavior is to create enemies, maybe they want militias to fight here at home. You NEVER know.

2
7
Bronze badge

"I believe that if the general public ... had access to the information ... this could spark a domestic debate as to the role of the military and foreign policy in general,..."

So, releasing and seeing the information published on informants spurs debate in the US?

Sorry, but doing that *does* give aid and comfort to the enemy, for the enemy knows who not to trust, if not eliminate.

The only reason he isn't charged with espionage and mutiny is, his commander was guilty of dereliction of duty. The moment Manning was flagged for deleterious personnel actions, his access to classified information and networks was, by regulation, to be stripped. It wasn't, he copied as much classified data as he could off of said systems and uploaded it to Wikileaks. It wasn't any noble cause he did it for, he did it out of simple vengeance, as he knew he was going to be separated from the military under other than honorable conditions for his insubordination and psychological instability.

What would be right would be to see to it that his commanding officers, from battalion down, his S2 officer and NCO and his section leader and NCO face punitive measures for dereliction of duty and continuing with Manning's court martial.

Instead, we'll only get the court martial and lousy leaders will continue on with their careers.

Damn, but I'm glad I'm retired from the Army. Things like this used to really drive me around the bend.

1
3
Bronze badge
Boffin

Re: Well, from this case we can conclude that the US defines 'the enemy' as:

Individuals do not possess "powers" under the US Constitution; only the powers we give the states are delineated in the Articles. Individuals possess something much more valuable in that they have rights. And God given ones; if you are of the believer persuasion - as I am.

1
0
Mushroom

"Individuals do not possess "powers" under the US Constitution;"

Of course, the Declaration of Independence trumps the US Constitution and gives to any and all people the inalienable right to separate from their iniquitous countrymen once and forever.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

No?

0
1
Bronze badge

Re: "Individuals do not possess "powers" under the US Constitution;"

@Local G: I like your comment, so don't take this the wrong way, but when you use the words "...the inalienable right..." like you have, understand the preamble is not implying rights of any kind, it is implying what you should do yourself, regardless if you have the "right" to or not. To me it implies you should not be held for treason if you are doing what you know to be best, however, good luck with that.

Also, when referring to "rights", it is good to understand that "rights" are more of privileges, they can be forfeited or taken away (the Patriot Act really shines here). Many will disagree with this, but whenever you read something along the lines of "God given rights", you probably should just replace those words with "Government given privileges".

1
0

Re: "Individuals do not possess "powers" under the US Constitution;"

@MyBackDoor: Thanks for pointing out my bad language. Your version is much better.

Man has no 'inalienable rights', especially not ones of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. And the 'rights of man'? They only exist in the halls of Minitrue.'

"Rights" are more of privileges, they can be forfeited or taken away" Exactly. Some have 'shelf lives' and "expiration days'. Some are term insurance that can be cancelled without notification.

" It is implying what you should do yourself, regardless if you have the "right" to or not." This is a huge can of worms, MyBackDoor: See me before opening it.

"Any law which violates the inalienable rights of man is essentially unjust and tyrannical; it is not a law at all." Robespierre.

This from a disreputable expert on 'the rights of man.'

1
3
Big Brother

What a wonderful nation the US is.

This entire court case is fair and reasonable. It is as it should be. After all, this type of courtroom drama is only fitting for a great, fair and noble nation.

It will stand up as a shining light for all friendly nations to copy.

16
3
Pint

Grey area

Not a fan Bradley Manning's actions but if it wasn't for him the world wouldn't know about "those dead bastards" and that in fact many (if not all) of them were innocent civilians. PFC Manning you got me in stuck in a moral dilemma. Then again I am alive and those Iraqi's aren't which adds perspective. Cheer PFC Manning.

16
3
Silver badge

Military justice.

Secret hearings, secret evidence, secret everything, no jury, just three judges who know they aren't going anywhere in their own careers if they don't find as the higher ranks decree. Why are we even bothering with this charade? Might as well just throw him into solitary confinement for the rest of his life right now and save the world the drama. No-one is buying this trial as anything but a rather ineffective attempt to claim fairness. The outcome is as good as fixed already.

They are barely even pretending this is a trial: Ruling in advance that he can only have one witness and that his most effective defenses are off-limits? It's a kangaroo court.

I suspect the officers in charge are torn between wanting to get this over with and wanting to put on a big show of how effectively any future 'traitors' will be destroyed for putting their own conscience over the reputation of the country.

31
3
Silver badge

Re: Military justice.

It is a court martial. He agreed to the terms when he signed up.

6
16
Bronze badge

Re: Military justice.

I don't think anyone is expecting A Few Good Men, but it doesn't necessarily have to turn out to be a Paths To Glory.

0
0
Silver badge
Stop

Re: Military justice.

"It is a court martial. He agreed to the terms when he signed up."

He agreed to abide by the MCJ, yes.

I don't think that says anything about holding people for a year in 'cruel and unusual' conditions before even getting a trail, though.

5
1
Silver badge

Re: Military justice.

Don Jefe, you must be a legal positivist - one of the most unthinking forms of humanity. The rules are simply guidance, and there are ALWAYS exceptions. In this case, it has shown that the rules are manifestly unfair, and has proved, as I have said for some time now, that the system of "military justice" (an oxymoron) needs to be ended now, and *all* citizens dealt with by the same laws. Telling soldiers that they protect a system that they do not benefit from is perverse, and leads to exactly this sort of problem.

3
1
Bronze badge

Re: Military justice.

I served for 27 years, 8 months in the US Army. From day one, I knew that if I divulged classified information, I'd be held in solitary confinement to avoid my further spilling classified information. It is in the annual security clearance briefing.

He signed the forms, which he was required to read, agreeing to that and he agreed to be held accountable for his actions under the UCMJ when he enlisted, as well as signing his clearance forms.

The only "cruel and unusual conditions" involved were some NCO's being unprofessional and unprofessionally overreacting intentionally when he made a crack about "if I wanted to hurt myself, I'd hang myself with my underwear". That particular NCO should lose two grades of rank at a minimum and 2/3 pay for three months for such unprofessional behavior.

As for a year in detention before trial, sorry, federal cases take forever to assemble. They want every fact well documented, all forensics proved correct, the case water tight. Even civilian prosecutions by the federal government can take up to two years to assemble.

That is why plea bargains are offered repeatedly during that period, to save time and expense and resolve the proceeding in a more timely manner.

*UCMJ is Universal Code of Military Justice in the US DoD.

One upside, capital punishment is off the table for Manning. Spending the remainder of his life in prison is still on the table and quite likely. Rightfully so, though his treatment in detention will be considered and the dereliction of duty of his superiors in not voiding his access to classified information while flagged for deleterious personnel actions will quietly be considered.

Though, from his Battalion commander down to his section leader and their senior NCO's should also face discipline for not following the law and Army regulations in voiding his access as is required by said law and regulations, presenting him his opportunity for vengeance for his upcoming other than honorable discharge for insubordination and mental instability.

3
2

Re: Military justice - amd what about the murderers? and what about you?

So - Mr Do-it-by-the-book.

What should happen to the mentally sub-normal kids who were flying the Apache which shot and killed innocent civilians and children?

And if you found out your government was acting illegally and immorally - would you be brave enough to alert the world - or would you carry on obeying orders?

Manning deserves to be treated as a hero for having the guts to stand up to evil.

What would you have done?

4
1

Re: Military justice - Justice?

So.

Torturing a prisoner - 2/3rds pay for three months.

Revealing evidence of unlawful killings - lifetime of torture by solitary confinement.

You need to rethink your priorities.

3
1
Silver badge

Re: Military justice.

"I served for 27 years, 8 months in the US Army. From day one, I knew that if I divulged classified information, I'd be held in solitary confinement to avoid my further spilling classified information. It is in the annual security clearance briefing."

Solitary confinement does not traditionally include stress positions and not being allowed to sit down. Manning was abused as a prisoner prior to trial.

The people who abused him, turned a blind eye to it, and let the clearly unstable guy have access to classified material in the first place should be doing a combined total of years in jail equal to Manning's. End of story.

0
1
Big Brother

141 witness for the prosecution but only 1 allowed for Manning. His only hope is the Chewbacca Defence

12
0
Bronze badge

so what you are saying is

That they have no hope of pinning him for any of the charges. Got it.

0
0
Silver badge

could have costs lives and hurt the country

Much worse, he made important people look bad.

15
1
Anonymous Coward

Don't you think that Bradley Manning knew this would be the outcome...

if outraged Americans didn't storm the Bastille after they read the reports he released.

0
0

Good to know

...that all the soldiers who were exposed killing civilians and children with evident glee were never charged with anything, while the man who exposes massive crimes is tortured and imprisoned without trial for three years, before having the book chucked at him. Good old USA. They make it too easy to see who the criminals really are.

34
1
Silver badge

if all doors in houses had small windows in them this wouldn't have happened, that is unless he really did shoot his girlfriend deliberately. but if you were going to do that wouldn't you make sure a door wasn't in the way? difficult case.

1
3
WTF?

Dear NomNomNom

Can you please let me know what you're smoking?

6
0

The worse the US treats Manning...

...the more it proves his point.

And it's not like the US doesn't have previous - it's locked three men up FOR FORTY YEARS in solitary confinement for daring the request better conditions. And the US state is appealing again to KEEP one of them locked up even after a judge ordered him to be freed for the third time.

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/28/after_40_years_in_solitary_in

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17564805

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/cases/usa-the-angola-3

A brutal, hate-filled, barbaric, elitist and seemingly racist government runs the USA - and they have the nerve to criticise other countries like China - it would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.

The lunatics have taken over the asylum. I will be praying for Manning - he's young and hopefully can come through this.

For the true horror of solitary confinement I'll paste some a couple links - they're upsetting reading to any normal human being - just like watching civilians and children being shot by an Apache helicopter and then the murderers being protected by the US state was no doubt upsetting to Manning.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/solitary-confinement-shane-bauer

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/19/solitary-confinement-congress-prisons

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-the-torture-of-solitary-confinement/2013/02/20/ae115d74-7ac9-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html

19
2
Bronze badge

Re: The worse the US treats Manning...

For 27 years, I served in the US Army. For 27 years, I had annual security briefings which stated outright, divulge classified information, go into solitary confinement to avoid the risk of further spills of classified information.

It's also in writing on the NDA form, which one is required to read before signing.

Military justice is harsh be necessity, for many violations of regulations during time of hostilities can result in the death of soldiers.

Funny thing about the videos he released, when watched in their entirety, they show weapons in the hands of insurgents who were previously engaged in firefights with US forces.

Such as an Apache gunship engaging a group of insurgents who had a couple of journalists trying to interview them. An RPG and AK's aplenty are clearly visible in the video.

Though, one group did their level best to edit out the most clear video showing weapons.

Now, explain how it was his duty of honor to release the names of every informant and collaborator that helped US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan?

1
4

Re: The worse the US treats Manning...

Read up on the facts. You're obviously determined to hold a particular viewpoint - but reading the facts will show the parts you have wrong.

And - see my earlier reply to your earlier post. What would you have done? Followed orders?

2
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: bailey86Re: The worse the US treats Manning...

"Read up on the facts....." bailey86 it is patently obvious you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the arse.

".....You're obviously determined to hold a particular viewpoint....." Your viewpoint was spoonfed to you. You mentioned eralier that you were thankful that Manning notified you of "these crimes", yet the chopper attack had been widely reported long before Manning's tantrum. Maybe if you actually went out, looked at news from a variety of sources, and formed YOUR OWN OPINIONS, rather than waiting to be told what was the protest trend-du-jour, then maybe you wouldn't look like such an ill-informed, shrieking, bandwagon-humper.

0
4
Unhappy

Re: Oh no, bailey86. Now you've done it.

You've awakened Smaug the Magnificent. The terrible Worm who will belch fire and smoke on all of us who dare defend Manning the Little. We are double doomed. Woe unto us.

0
1

Re: bailey86The worse the US treats Manning...

I’ll paste up a link for the record. It's so easy to check facts these days.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/us/bradley-manning-admits-giving-trove-of-military-data-to-wikileaks.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

0
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: failure86 Re: bailey86The worse the US treats Manning...

"..... It's so easy to check facts these days......" You should have asked an adult to read this WaPo article for you, waaaaaay back in 2007, long before A$$nut got busy with his editing tool in 2010:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071202357.html

Or maybe this article from the NYT looking at Reuters' efforts to investigate how two of their reporters got killed that day:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0DEED81E3EF930A25754C0A9619C8B63

The event was even covered by an American journalist in a book published in 2009. Oh, sorry, I forgot sheeple like you needed to wait for a popstar or a mediawhore like A$$nut to tell you about "the facts"......

0
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: The worse the US treats Manning...

The worse they will treat any future Manning who dares to expose fraud and deceit in the government.

0
0

Re: failure86 bailey86The worse the US treats Manning...

When you write things like "sheeple like you needed to wait for a popstar or a mediawhore like A$$nut" you prove our point exactly.

You are a nasty, abusive, fanatic - the US government seems to be run by nasty, abusive, fanatics - and it is supported by a huge number of nasty, abusive, fanatical Americans.

There seems to be a particular dumb redneck mentality of "I'm dumb and I wanna drive my dumb truck and fuck anyone who get's in my way - fuck yeah!" which is prevalent in the US. Due to you not having anywhere near enough oil of your own your government has supported the pampered despots who run Saudi Arabia - some other Saudis got angry about your support for the brutal House of Saud for the last sixty years - and hence 9/11 happened.

Now you're tied up in conflicts to support your oil imports which is destroying your economy. The air conditioning alone is $20 BILLION PER YEAR.

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-war-20b-in-air-conditioning

Thanks for the links to the articles you posted - they clearly show how the US military was trying to spin events. The release of the video showed what actually happened - that's why it was so important.

Let me make it clear - the shooting of the mini-van which was trying to pick up wounded was clearly utterly horrifying to any civilised person. Manning deserves a medal for releasing the videos which shows more clearly than anything the casual, childish brutality of the US military - the complete lack of respect for human life.

If it makes a white, liberal like me angry then think how it incenses the Iraqis. Does that make sense now? It's about respect which is a huge issue for some nationalities. The problem is that I don't think a nasty, abusive, fanatic like you cares.

And what are you doing in Iraq!?! Oil. You needed to get troops out of Saudi Arabia due to local opposition, you wanted to remove the inconvenient sanctions imposed on Saddam Hussein. You wanted access to their oil.

I suggest you need to learn far more about the geopolitics - I suggest you start with 'Blood and Oil' by Michael Klare. As for your morality - I suggest you go to a local church and offer to help those less well off than yourself. As for your manners - that's up to you.

2
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: failey86 Re: failure86 bailey86The worse the US treats Manning...

LOL, that childish little rant was very revealing as to your self-delusions. Just for your information, I'm English, not a Yank.

".....There seems to be a particular dumb redneck mentality of "I'm dumb and I wanna drive my dumb truck and fuck anyone who get's in my way - fuck yeah!" which is prevalent in the US......" You obviously have never been to the States, and probably never even met an American. The funniest bit is your own sweeping statement condemns people like Manning that you just tried to hold up as some sort of hero! What a clown!

"......some other Saudis got angry about your support for the brutal House of Saud for the last sixty years - and hence 9/11 happened....." Yeah, I think you really need to do a lot more reading into the history of Islamism rather than what is in the back of cereal packets.

".....Let me make it clear - the shooting of the mini-van which was trying to pick up wounded was clearly utterly horrifying to any civilised person......" Let me correct that for you - utterly horrifying for some knob looking for a reason to get shrieky about the Big Bad Yanks. The rest of us that understand awful things happen in war without there having to be some dastardly evil motive involved, well we're just going to laugh at you. As has been pointed out endlessly here on these forums before, the Apache pilots were following the rules of engagement set out by lawyers and politicians, and in the case of the van attack they even asked for permission to engage from a senior officer despite there being more than enough justification to open fire in the first place. People like you that deliberately ignore the facts so you can satisfy your politically driven desire to bleat are simply fooling yourselves. If you actually knew some of the actual background to the events, rather than the heavily-edited version spoonfed to you by A$$nut, then you'd know that. But we've already established you are too much of an intellectual child to do your own research and form your own opinions Enjoy your trendy failure, just don't expect those of us with more than half a clue to applaud your stupidity.

0
4

Re: failey86 failure86 bailey86The worse the US treats Manning...

Wait - are you seriously saying that the US has NOT been supporting the House of Saud since Roosevelt met King Abdulaziz onboard the U.S. Navy cruiser Quincy on February 14th 1945?

http://www.susris.com/2011/02/14/today-in-history-king-abdulaziz-and-president-roosevelt-meeting/

The problem is this - the US does not support Saudi Arabia as a country - it supports the House of Saud which is the family which has run Saudi Arabia.

http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/saudi-arabia

http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-saudi-arabia

It's OK if you're one of the pampered princes - but not if you aren't.

As another complication, Saudi Arabia was a long time supporter Wahhabism which is an ultra-conservative form of Islam.

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

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html

This article explains how the British initially promoted Wahhabism and how the Americans made the same mistake in the 1970's. Leading directly to Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban.

http://www.rferl.org/content/Saudi_Arabia_Awakens_To_The_Dangers_Of_Wahhabism/2017767.html

And this all goes to show the sort of mess the US has got itself in because rednecks want to drive their SUV's - OK - a simplification - the whole US economy is dependent on imported oil and the plan they came up with was to control the major oil producers using military force. All well documented, and the US administration have at times been quite open about their intentions. Again, read Blood and Oil by Michael Klare - it's full of direct quotes from the US administration and military.

Of course, none if this is going to make any difference to a fanatic like yourself - but I put it up for others who may read this thread.

1
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: even more failey86 Re: failey86 failure86 bailey86The worse the US treats Manning...

"......are you seriously saying that the US has NOT been supporting the House of Saud...." Where did I say that? It looks like the reason you are dependent on twits like A$$nut to tell you what to think is you suffer from a real lack of comprehension. Try READING what I posted. Besides, Manning's crimes were commited whilst serving in IRAQ, not Saudi, and the Apache attack that A$$nut massively edited into the "Collateral Murder" lie took place in IRAQ, not Saudi! If you're so clueless you don't even know the difference then it really is asking too much for you to have an opinion of your own.

".....This article explains how the British initially promoted Wahhabism and how the Americans made the same mistake in the 1970's. Leading directly to Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban....." Dear Clueless Child, you have completely failed to realise that the problems of Islam long predate the involvement of either the US or the British Empire in Saudi Arabia. Your failure must be quite embarrassing to your family, I hope they didn't waste too much money on that "education" you slept through. Seriously, you really need to go do a lot more reading of real history books and not just trend-du-jour opinion pieces and blogs.

0
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: The worse the US treats Manning...

>For 27 years, I served in the US Army. For 27 years, I had annual security briefings which stated outright, divulge classified information, go into solitary confinement to avoid the risk of further spills of classified information.It's also in writing on the NDA form, which one is required to read before signing. Military justice is harsh be necessity, for many violations of regulations during time of hostilities can result in the death of soldiers.

Wow, so if it is written down you've got no choice then. It is so comfy to have blinders isn't it? It relieves you of the chore of thinking. Or having a moral compass.

Ever heard of Nuremberg Wzrd1?

1
1
Silver badge
Stop

Re: AC Re: The worse the US treats Manning...

".....Ever heard of Nuremberg....." I'm betting the only time you heard of Nuremberg was when one of your equally dense buddies said to you "and if you ever run into some guy that actually knows about the military and stuff, just hide your ignorance with this throw away remark about Nuremberg....."

0
2
WTF?

Jeeze

I think you made your point guys! Torturing him mentally aint really going to get you any further with your case against him so give him a window for Christ's sake at the very least!

2
0
Megaphone

Freedom

Bradley Manning should be geven the Medal of Freedom because what he had done is shine a search light on criminal activity by the military and the government. The thing is, criminal actions by government and the military weaken us all and put us all at risk. It takes a special kind of courage to blow that whistle and for the criminals in government it endagers them more than anything else. That is why they will lie, torture and even kill to protect themselves from the consequences of exposure. Those criminals do what they do because they think they are following a shining light. They are but it is light straight from the fires of hell! Of course a president who can claim a right to kill citizens without due process and also allow the continued Rovian persecution of Don Siegelman and Paul Minor for non crimes is more likely to give the medal to Bernie Madoff.

7
3
Bronze badge

Re: Freedom

Sorry, but you missed some important facts.

Fact one, the Apache gunship video clearly shows an RPG on the shoulder of one insurgent and AK's on the shoulder and in the hands of the majority of the group.

The journalists sought out those who were engaged in firefights all morning long with US forces.

Sorry dude, it's called a war. To complain about killing enemy combatants in war essentially rejects the victor of WWII for the bombing of Dresden and Hamburg and essentially say the allies should have surrendered.

As for citizens being killed in the war, every war in history did so for any who helped the enemy or fought for the enemy. Try learning history for a change.

Manning also released the names of every collaborator and informant. That in and of itself endangered those people's lives and cut off information that ensured the safety of our forces.

We can agree that Iraq was a misadventure, to be painting it with pale colors, but once engaged, we were stuck with stabilizing the situation.

1
4
Joke

" Manning will get 112 days taken off any sentence he receives."

I wonder how many days would have been taken off if he had died in custody?

7
0
Bronze badge

Re: " Manning will get 112 days taken off any sentence he receives."

All of them.

Now, explain *how* he could have died in custody? Of boredom? He wasn't attacked, struck, tortured or otherwise physically abused.

The lights stay on in prison. That is how it is. A few NCO's need to lose at least two grades of rank and 2/3 pay for three months for unprofessional and mentally abusive behavior, but still there is nothing that would endanger his life.

He should get 112 days off of any sentence he will serve, for he's been serving it in detention pending trial as the case was assembled.

He should also receive a formal apology from the government for the unprofessional behavior and psychological abuse performed by NCO's.

1
3

Re: " Manning will get 112 days taken off any sentence he receives."

There ought to be another category for the coroner. "Death while incarcerated" When the army don't need a show trial to give current and future enlistees frightohoea about their "loose lips", all sorts of accidents may befall a prisoner.

Look at that Australian Israeli who was found hanged in his cell. He was on suicide watch yet he managed "to slip betimes away."

Did he commit suicide? Depends if you believe Mossad?

0
2
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Local Dupe Re: " Manning will get 112 days taken off any sentence he receives."

".....Look at that Australian Israeli who was found hanged in his cell. He was on suicide watch yet he managed "to slip betimes away."......" Try putting your reflexive anti-Semitism aside and asking a very simple question, as asked by investigators all over the World - who had a motive to kill Prisoner X? And the answer is the Mossad and the Israeli government had no reason to kill him, he was securely locked away in isolation and no longer a threat of leaks, so why create the international incident of killing him? Honestly, if it pains you that much to realise the poor guy committed suicide then I suggest you need professional help.

0
3

Your 2013 pub cost's on me. Show any MB reply to criticism of Israel not a charge of anti-Semitism

Local G. (my mark)

0
2

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.