back to article Manning to get day in court

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 …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I hope he is convicted

    I hope this traitor is convicted and spends the next 100 years in prison.

  2. laird cummings
    FAIL

    A little context is needed here...

    "...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?

    1. Scorchio!!
      Meh

      Re: A little context is needed here...

      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. :-)

    2. David Webb

      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.

    3. Ian Michael Gumby
      Boffin

      @Laird

      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.

      1. laird cummings

        @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.

  3. Steven Roper
    Mushroom

    @AC 22:46

    Which traitor? PFC Manning or that vicious little dobber Adrian Lamo who turned him in?

    1. Duppo Floopery

      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.

      1. Ian Michael Gumby
        WTF?

        @Duppo

        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)?

  4. All names Taken

    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?)

  5. Graham Marsden
    Thumb Up

    And about time too!

    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...)

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      RE: And about time too!

      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.

      1. teebie

        Taking a gun from someone is reasonable if you think they are suicidal.

        Depriving them of sleep is not.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Stop

          RE: teebie

          "....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.

          1. Graham Marsden

            @Matt Bryant

            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

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Stop

              RE: @Matt Bryant

              "....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.

              1. Graham Marsden
                Boffin

                Re: RE: @Matt Bryant

                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."

                http://my.firedoglake.com/kgosztola/2011/07/14/quantico-brig-staff-mostly-ignored-recommendations-medical-staff-made-on-bradley-manning/

                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?

                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  FAIL

                  RE: Re: RE: @Matt Bryant

                  "....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.

                  1. Graham Marsden

                    Matt Bryant

                    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.

                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      FAIL

                      RE: Matt Bryant

                      ".....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.

      2. Graham Marsden
        Boffin

        @Matt Bryant

        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.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          RE: @Matt Bryant

          "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.

  6. Asgard
    WTF?

    @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!

    1. PT

      @Asgard

      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

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Enemy to us all" - Really?

      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.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. foo_bar_baz

        @AC troll 6:19

        "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?

    3. Charles Manning

      Sadly...

      "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.

    4. AnotherBird
      Alert

      the leaker is not a hero

      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.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Traitor

    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...

  8. Winkypop Silver badge
    Devil

    ..."open, except when classified information is being discussed"

    Classified information will be available on wikileaks the day after....

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Facepalm

      RE: ..."open, except when classified information is being discussed"

      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.

  9. Esskay
    Facepalm

    What a farce.

    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.

    1. Jedit Silver badge

      Sweden

      Enemy of America. You have been warned.

      1. Armando 123

        Sweden went on the hit list with Ikea. If that place isn't a crime against civilization, ...

  10. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Facepalm

    RE: What a farce.

    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.

  11. Hilmi Al-kindy

    I'm an Arab and I still think what he did was wrong

    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?

    1. Jedit Silver badge
      Unhappy

      Fuelling hatred

      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,

      or

      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.

      1. Hilmi Al-kindy
        Facepalm

        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.

        1. Jedit Silver badge

          Demonisation

          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.

  12. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    FAIL

    Correction.

    "....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.

    1. teebie

      So your correction is

      "....which showed a helicopter attack in Baghdad in 2007 targeting civilians, 2 of whom were armed, ...."

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        FAIL

        RE: So your correction is

        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?

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        FAIL

        RE: "the chopper crew ... got clearance to fire from a senior officer"

        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.

  13. Tony Paulazzo
    Big Brother

    >Its the elected representatives who lie to the electorate who are guilty of treason against their own people and country<

    Worth repeating.

    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.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Paranoid Yanks

    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%

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      RE: Paranoid Yanks

      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.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A protest song in support of him

    Sung by a fellow american

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BG0mZmRHb0

  16. Bernard M. Orwell
    Megaphone

    Where's MB? Oh, anon coward posts perhaps? Anyway....

    "The Article 32 hearing is a military pre-trial, in which the accusations and evidence will be tested to see whether they’re likely to hold up in a full trial."

    So, let me get this straight, Manning has been held for 18 months, mostly in solitary confinement, under difficult conditions (suicide watch etc), but not only has he had no hearing, not only has he had no trial, not only has he not been charged but they don't even know, after all that time, if they have any evidence that indicate they can charge him at all?

    That's clearly not just.

    Manning is a political prisoner, just like any of those held in less "democratic" nations without charge for political activism.

    Charge him, or let him go you fascist thugs.

    1. laird cummings
      FAIL

      Oh, bullsh!t.

      I'm astonished at the level of ignorance you just displayed. Really, could you have tried, just a bit, to show something other than knee-kerk politics?

      The delay has been all due to tactical maneuvering by Manning's lawyers* in pre-trial motions and filings to get for him the best possible advantage they can. And yes, it's been drawn-out; they're working every possible angle, and that takes *time.* If they're successful, he'll get away with time served, and that's a win for them. If they fail, the time held will almost certainly count against whatever sentence he gets, thus reducing the time he serves *after* a conviction.

      Likewise, the prosecution is maneuvering to block the defense's tactics. they're trying every bit as hard as the defense to put together a bullet-proof case. This also burns time.

      This is not thuggery, it's the wheels of justice, such as they are, grinding slowly but finely. Highly charged cases like this simply just take longer. The fact that Manning is caught in the gears is very nearly an afterthought, by now. It's not vindictiveness, it's just legal bureaucracy in action.

      Do try to keep up, m'kay?

      *I don't like Manning at all, but I have to give his defense team some respect - they don't have much to work with, but they're trying everything.

    2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      RE: Where's MB? Oh, anon coward posts perhaps? Anyway....

      I see you are not only uninformed but also too short-sighted to see my posts. Maybe you should get help with reading these forums? Or just help in general.

      "....Charge him...." Manning was originally charged in July 2010, he was further charged with 22 more counts in March this year. The fact that you don't even know those most basic of facts makes your hyperventillating nothing more than the most childish of bleatings. Please leave the discussion to the adults, before you make yourself look any more stupid.

  17. Armando 123

    So ...

    I see a lot of people here, and from reading them they tend to be non-Americans, thinking what he did was the right thing.

    However, as a member of the military, ANY military, you are not supposed to leak information. Period. When you sign up for the military, that is made very clear, and by volunteering for the military, you are agreeing to the terms and conditions of your own free will.

    And while Julian Assange was likely not passing on military secrets to enemies of the state like Al Qaeda or China or Charlie Sheen, can you KNOW that? And can you KNOW that the representative in contact with you is who that contact claims to be?

    This seems a pretty straightforward case. The rules say "Don't do X", the defendant was caught doing X. Not a lot of wiggle room there.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. paulc
      Stop

      Only following orders?

      Nuremberg War Crimes trials voided that excuse... if you have evidence that crimes against humanity are being committed, then you are morally obliged to follow your conscience and get the facts out...

      a totally brilliant link...

      http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm

      |In 2004, the military began court-martials of several military members deployed to Iraq for mistreating prisoners and detainees. Several members claimed that they were only following the orders of military intelligence officials. Unfortunately (for them), that defense won't fly. The mistreatment of prisoners is a crime under both international law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (see Article 93 — Cruelty and Maltreatment). |

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        FAIL

        RE: Only following orders?

        LOL! Which completely misses the fact the Apache "massacare" was investigated and shown not to be a "warcrime", and the US released the reports into the investigations on April 5th 2010 (same day as the Wikileaks edited vid went out). There was no attempt at a cover up, no denial of the events happening, and full legal review of the matter. So, by highlighting the fact that the US military DOES investigate and prosecute warcrimes committed by US troops, you have merely shown that these are NOT warcrimes. Major fail! I seriously hope for Manning's sale that his legal team are a lot sharper than the sheeple posting nonsense in his support here.

        1. Graham Marsden
          Holmes

          Re: RE: Only following orders?

          So the US Military investigates the actions of the US Military and one part of the US Military decides that the other part of the US Military hasn't committed a war crime!

          I hope that Manning's lawyers are sharper than you in spotting a blatant conflict of interest.

          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            FAIL

            RE: Re: RE: Only following orders?

            "So the US Military investigates the actions of the US Military...." Apart from the fact the investigation went further than just the US Military, it is easy to show the stupidity of your reasoning as paulc's original "only following orders" post includes the bit where the US Military were prosceting US personnel that had committed crimes, so it would seem blatently obvious (to nonsheeple, anyway) that the US MIlitary investigating the US Military DOES result in actual warcrimes being punished. So funny when you can show up one bleater with another one's posts!

            QED, you are talking more fail out of your rectum yet again.

            1. Graham Marsden
              Boffin

              Oh deary, deary me, Matt Bryant.

              Please do a little more thinking before going off on another of your little tirades.

              There is a *big* difference between the "we were only obeying orders when we tortured detainess" defence and the "we were following the Rules of Engagement, honest!" defence.

              Trying to equate the two to justify the US Military's exoneration of the Apache helicopter crew for murdering innocent people (including those trying to assist the killed and wounded who were clearly *not* a threat) is simply ridiculous.

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                FAIL

                RE: Oh deary, deary me, Matt Bryant.

                "Please do a little more thinking...." Now that is ironic, coming from a poster who has been proven to be wrong so many times, but still comes back posting their pre-formed, spoonfed "throughts"! It would be a miracle if you actually did a little thinking for yourself!

                ".....There is a *big* difference between the "we were only obeying orders when we tortured detainess" defence and the "we were following the Rules of Engagement, honest!" defence....." It's not a defence, it is the basis of the laws of warfare. War is not a nice business, it entails deliberately looking for and killing those you are fighting, often without giving them any form of warning. The Apache crew had a job to do - protecting the soldiers operating on the ground - and they had a set RoE that meant they could fire on anyone that fitted the description of "threatening" to their comrades' safety.

                ".....Trying to equate the two...." It is very telling that in all of this, you NEVER consider the safety of the troops on the ground, instead you don't just hold the lives of armed militia (who were there in the group, and who were trying to kill Americans that day) as more valuable than those of the US soldiers on the ground, you simply don't consider the US soldiers at all. It is you, wrapped up in your hatred, that is patently rediculous.

                1. Graham Marsden

                  Matt Bryant

                  I can see now that it is utterly pointless trying to have a reasonable debate with you. Anything that doesn't fit in with your preconceived ideas is either dismissed or ridiculed with childish comments about "bleaters" or nonsensical assumptions about other posters' motivations.

                  You ignore anything that you don't agree with and when someone demonstrates you are mistaken you try to shift the goal posts and then claim that you have "proved" that the other person is wrong.

                  Your argument above about the RoE is a perfect example, how exactly was shooting up people (including children) trying to help wounded "protecting" the soldiers on the ground? How exactly were they "threatening" to their comrades' safety? They weren't of course, but that's not your problem, is it?

                  And as for I "don't just hold the lives of armed militia as more value than those of the US soldiers on the ground" the Rules of Warfare don't make anyone standing nearby someone who may be carrying a weapon a fair target, unless, of course, you're in the US and can use the words "Collateral Damage" to mean "murdering innocent people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time".

                  Please feel free to get the last word in this thread, I've wasted enough time on someone who isn't willing to listen to any other opinion than his own.

                  1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                    FAIL

                    RE: Matt Bryant

                    "I can see now that it is utterly pointless trying to have a reasonable debate with you....." Yeah, I bet you're just not used to people qustioning whatever you've been told to think. A debate would require two people with factual arguments - all you have presented is hysterical propaganda, then backtracked yourself into a corner. I'm not surprised you're throwing in the towel when you've been shown up so badly

                    "....You ignore anything that you don't agree with...." Ignore? Like your rediculous claim that Manning was woken "every *five* minutes"? I think you meant to say "proven to be bunk" everything you've presented. Then again, original thought and you are probably still strangers.

                    ".....you try to shift the goal posts...." Hmmm, let's take a little review of your posts and see if we can spot any moving goalpost:

                    Wednesday 23rd November 2011 05:00 GMT - insists Manning was woken every fifteen minutes.

                    Thursday 24th November 2011 09:36 GMT - ".....it wasn't every fifteen minutes, it was every *five* minutes....."

                    Sunday 27th November 2011 19:01 GMT - "......I can't say *exactly* how many times he was woken.....He is usually woken several times throughout the night by guards...."

                    LOL! They're not just moving, they're jumping all over the place like fleas!

                    "......how exactly was shooting up people...." First group included at least two armed men, moving towards a group of US soldiers operating in the area, and in a manner so as not to be sighted by the ground troops. Under the RoE, that made the whole group a legitimate target as the chopper crew could not strike just the individuals in the group alone (yes, there are RoE for use of area effect weapons like 30mm cannon).

                    ".....including children...." The children were not visible to the chopper crew. The van that went to collect the bodies did not pose a direct threat to the soldiers on the ground, but it did not have to. Part of post-engagement work in Iraq is/was identifying the dead so you can/could track them back to their families and clans to check for more militia/terrorists/"freedomfighters". All guerilla groups make a habit of removing their dead and their weapons as means both of hiding their losses and stopping intelligence gathering. In Iraq (and Afghanistan), the locals are warned NOT to try to move dead people until the authorities have got to the scene, not just because they unintentionally screw up evidence but also because the militia are often carrying bombs or other items that could be a risk to curious civillians. The men in the van may have been just good samaritans, and if they'd just stuck to moving the wounded then they might have got away with it, but they made the mistake of picking up a weapon and moving the dead, both of which made them legit targets. It is highly likely the kids were in the van as human shields (a common tactic in Arab communities), and that would have worked if the chopper crew had seen the kids, but the vid clearly shows they were unaware the children were there. So, once again, you're talking ignorant, male bovine manure.

                    ".....the Rules of Warfare don't make anyone standing nearby someone who may be carrying a weapon a fair target...." So laughably wrong as to be patently childish! Please, just go get a clue, do some reading on the actual rules of war, then come back if you still want to hold such a childish line. The RoE used in Iraq clearly state that, in protecting other soldiers or civillians, that chopper crews could use area effect weapons on groups even if some of that group were not armed and not positively identified as militia. To whit:

                    ".....Rules of Self-Protection for all Soldiers.

                    (U) US forces will protect themselves from threats of death or serious bodily harm. Deadly force may be used to defend your life, the life of another US soldier, or the life of persons in areas under US control. You are authorized to use deadly force in self-defense when--

                    You are fired upon.

                    Armed elements, mobs, and/or rioters threaten human life....."

                    The shooting of the inital group of militia is covered as they posed a risk to the ground troops. If the chopper crew had been ground troops then they would have been breaking the RoE of they had fired on the unarmed van, they would have had to arrest them instead. However, as an aerial vehicle without the means to arrest the van men, the chopper crew were allowed to go to deadly force to stop them (a) committing the crime of removing enemies bodies and weapons from the scene, and (b) giving aid and succour to the enemy combatants.

                    ".....Please feel free to get the last word in this thread, I've wasted enough time on someone who isn't willing to listen to any other opinion than his own." Which roughly translates as "wah, wah, wah!" What you mean is you've been shown up and exposed for the naive sheeple that you are. Now go do some learning, get some real facts instead of just ranting hysterics, then come back and try again ('cos we'll enjoy another good laugh!).

  18. TimNevins
    Stop

    Hands up

    Quick show of hands.

    How many people think Oskar Schindler should have been arrested/charged with treason/tortured and executed for saving victims from an oppressive regime?

    How about Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg for attempting to remove Hitler from power(and potentially shortening the war) ?

    Anyone?

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      RE: Hands up

      Which has absolutely nothing to do with the current case. Manning was not caught saving Jews from the gaschambers or trying to kill a maniac dictator, he was caught passing secrets he had taken an oath to protect. Your clear inability to find perspective just shows your whole mental process is completely lacking in any form of coherent thought. Please take a chill pill, go away and actually THINK about what is being discussed.

  19. JaitcH
    FAIL

    We should remember the first, video, leak ...

    was from an Apache helicopter in which numerous civilians and children were randomly shot and murdered as well as two Reuters reporters.

    The most sickening art of the video was the play-by-play commentary of the crew that sounded they were out hunting wolves.

    Their attitude was played out by Lt. John PIKE at UC Davis when he calmly walked down a line of seated students spraying them with pepper/tear gas as of they were cockroaches..

    DO WE WANT MURDERERS PROTECTED BY SECRETS LEGISLATION? I hope most of us do NOT?

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      WTF?

      RE: We should remember the first, video, leak ...

      Wow! The tinfoil is beyond tight with this one, it's in-grown!

      "....which numerous civilians and children were randomly shot and murdered...." The "civillians" included armed millitia, the press crew involved were NOT wearing their identifying jackets, and the children in the van could not be seen by the Apache crew. No-one was "randomly" shot at, the only shooting was in-line with the rules of engagement. Have you even seen the (massively-edited) Wikileaks video? Or do you just bleat whatever you get told to without question?

      And what has it got to do with a campus cop spraying pepperspray on US Davis students!!?!??!!? WTF? IMHO, you really are just desperate and very short of a clue, and say nothing that doesn't make Manning supporters look dumb.

  20. mhenriday
    Big Brother

    To understand the background to the Bradley Manning trial,

    (the English translation of) the Goebbels quote provided by PT should be paired with one from Gustave Gilbert's interview of 18 April 1946 with Hermann Göring : «Natürlich, das einfache Volk will keinen Krieg […] Aber schließlich sind es die Führer eines Landes, die die Politik bestimmen, und es ist immer leicht, das Volk zum Mitmachen zu bringen, ob es sich nun um eine Demokratie, eine faschistische Diktatur, um ein Parlament oder eine kommunistische Diktatur handelt. […] Das ist ganz einfach. Man braucht nichts zu tun, als dem Volk zu sagen, es würde angegriffen, und den Pazifisten ihren Mangel an Patriotismus vorzuwerfen und zu behaupten, sie brächten das Land in Gefahr. Diese Methode funktioniert in jedem Land.» An illustration of how effective this method can be had by examining the postings on this thread by, among others, a certain poster with pronounced keyboard problems....

    Henri

    1. paulc
      Thumb Up

      in English...

      |Of course, the common people do not want war [...] But ultimately it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always easy to bring the people along, whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, is a parliament or a communist dictatorship. [...] This is very simple. It takes nothing to do but to tell the people they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and claim that they were bringing the country to danger. This method works in any country|

      viz how 9/11 was seized upon to drag the American people into passing the Patriot Act and Bush was quoted as saying in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."...

      leaving no place in the middle...

    2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Happy

      RE: To understand the background to the Bradley Manning trial

      Quoting Goebbels? Great, educational, might even make a few people think you're smart. But has SFA to do with the Manning case. You are clearly all out of facts if you're off quoting WW2 trivia. What am I saying - you never had any facts to back up your rediculous posts in the first place! Since your posts do little more than amuse (in a "look how STUPID this guy is!" kinda way), I'll leave you with a quote much more pertinent to both Manning and yourself (and seen quite often on 4chan, so I assume you'll be quite familiar with it):

      KRUSTY THE CLOWN to MELVIN VAN HORNE: "You, sir, are an idiot!"

      Enjoy!

      1. mhenriday
        FAIL

        The nature of Mr Bryant's knowledge of and devotion to the «facts»

        is adequately revealed in his mistaking Göring for Goebbels, and his grasp of history by his dismissing what the former had to say about how governments of all stripes manipulate their peoples into supporting wars of aggression as «WW2 trivia». Edmund Burke pointed out that «[t]hose who don't know history are doomed to repeat it» ; the problem with Mr Bryant is that he seems not only to want to repeat it himself, but to want the rest of us to do so as well....

        Henri

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          RE: The nature of Mr Bryant's knowledge of and devotion to the «facts»

          "....mistaking Göring for Goebbels...." Apologies, I was skim reading your post to see if there was any actual point in it, which there wasn't. Maybe if you posted something to actually do with Manning it might be worth some attention?

          The nature of mrhenrydummbass's fail is that he cannot win the argument with anything evenly remotely relevant to the question in hand, so falls back on wild Godwinisms in an attempt to portray his ramblings as having some value. So, according to mrhenryclueless, the US gubbermint is happilly planning some form of Worldwide imperialist venture, and that the only thing standing in its way is "heroes" like Manning and A$$nut. Slight problem - none of what Manning leaked or A$$nut sold has shown any such plot. The really telling actions have been A$$nut's floundering attempts to make a fast buck out of the whole escapade, with Manning carrying the can.

          1. mhenriday
            FAIL

            Once again distorting the names of those with whom you disagree

            as your primary method of argument, Mr Bryant ? Do you really find the results of this technique so encouraging that you want to continue using it ?...

            Henri

  21. This post has been deleted by its author

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    He won't be missed

    When Manning is hung, he won't be missed.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Try, convict, EXECUTE

    And do it ASAP, this traitor needs to away permanently!

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Boffin

      RE: Try, convict, EXECUTE

      "Try, convict, EXECUTE...." I'd prefer "try, convict, treat" as it seems the guy has some serious issues.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like