Manning's lawyer calls for pre-trial officer to quit case Alleged Wikileaks cables source Private Bradley Manning will not get an unbiased military trial unless the officer presiding over his case is replaced, said Manning's defence lawyer David Coombs today. The brief was speaking at a preliminary hearing in the military base of Fort Meade, Maryland, according to the Associated …
It's been quite a while now since they collared this young and most probably very naive man. Am I right in saying this is his first hearing? From what I gather he has been kept in closed confinement with what could be measured in minutes for outside "exercise" each day, not for his own mind of sound but for the purposes of being able to tell the media that he is being kept in accordance with united states laws. and checked upon several times per hour whilst being denied any contact with anything realistically human whether that be in flesh or brain fodder form, essentially a way of torture that we can all happily agree with because it is not physical other than the hard bed he has to sleep on and the subtle changes in his neural pathways that will hinder his functioning as a "normal" human being in the future.
I thought the cold war had ended?
Seems some keep up the tried and tested ways of breaking their own. We may progress but torture will always remain the same.
He was kept that way initially.
After the State's department spokesman quit after being honest in answering student questions about this he was transferred to a facility where conditions were not an obvious form of torture.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/05/manning_leavenworth_marines_bad_says_lawyer/
Though the fact that the torture would have voided the trial probably played its role too.
Well, I suppose it's progress in that you lot have stopped trying to claim he was woken up every fifteen minutes, but, tbh, you're still sounding like a load of fruitloops. All this wailling about "torture" is just comic, especially as Manning was moved to a lower-security prison and taken off suicied watch waaaay back in April. Haven't the herders come up with something new for the sheeple to bleat yet, the whole torture gag is very stale.
And the poor wretch who spoke to a civilian whilst in a shit for brains army isn't now either. He is in prison in a country that openly abuses people (according to spokespersons for ex Presidunce George the Thick.)
This case could get interesting: http://infinitefuture.blogspot.com/
However, the time is waaaaay past (say, 150 years) for there to be separate "justice" for one set of citizens as compared to another. In no other walk of life can an employer say "We have our own criminal law here, and you are subject to it the minute you sign on the dotted line".
It is long past time for military justice to be laid to rest, and the same standards applied as they are to civilians.
The military is bringing in a reservist to run this instead of a regular active duty career officer?
Wouldn't this case, defending the country against security breaches, be good for an officer's career?
Or have they figured out it's going to be something nobody wants to touch with a 10 foot asbestos pole while wearing an anti-radiation suit, and so they're giving it to someone who can go back to their real job?
In 1945 after the Allies occupied western Germany, the defeated population was occasionally asked, "Didn't you know that the Jews were being carried in cattle cars to concentration camps were they were slaughtered? Most often the answer was "Nein."
Because there was no German Assange and Manning, Allied historians had no way of proving that these Germans REALLY did know.
Fast forward 65 years later. If the citizens of the nations that invaded Iraq are asked today, "Did you know that the armed forces in which your country participated were killing unarmed civilians?"
Because of Assange and Manning no one will be able to say, like the Germans said about Auschwitz, that they had no idea.
It seems to me, AC, that there is plenty of music for everybody. If not for people to face, then certainly for their consciences to face.
"....Because there was no German Assange and Manning, Allied historians had no way of proving that these Germans REALLY did know....." Sorry, but you're wrong. There was plenty of evidence, and it has been pointed out by historians such as Michael Kater, who have been able to go back and show the average German was at best a passive supporter of the Holocaust. Post-War, with the need to rebuild Western Germany into an allie to face possible war with the Soviets, there was almost a rush to excuse the German people of the Holocaust. The governments of countries such as France, which had happilly participated in sending Jews to the deathcamps, were more than happy to hide their own involvement. No need for Dickileaks or Manning.
"Opinions differ on how much the civilian population of Germany knew about the government conspiracy against the Jewish population. Most historians claim that the civilian population was unaware of the atrocities that were carried out, especially in the extermination camps, which were located outside of Germany in Nazi-occupied Europe. The historian Robert Gellately, however, claims that the government openly announced the conspiracy through the media, and that civilians were aware of its every aspect except for the use of gas chambers.[14] Significant historical evidence points to the idea that the vast majority of Holocaust victims, prior to their deportation to concentration camps, were either unaware of the fate that awaited them, or were in disbelief; they honestly believed that they were to be resettled." (Wikipedia)
Only the victims didn't know?
As far as the average German being a "passive supporter" of the Holocaust, that word was not in use then and the average German thought what their government was doing was similar to the steps we think our government is taking against Terrorism. The mini-series Holocaust is credited with introducing the term into common parlance after 1978.
There were no cell phone cameras, Youtube, or cable network news. There was only Josef Goebbels, partisan news papers and Leni Riefenstahl Agitprop . Just because you weren't Jewish didn't mean you couldn't get an early morning visit from the Gestapo. No doubt that created much of the "passive support" you refer to.
"Broad definitions of the Holocaust include the Nazis' genocide of millions of people in other groups, including Romani (more commonly known in English by the eponym "Gypsies"), Sinti, Soviet prisoners of war, Polish and Soviet civilians,homosexuals, people with disabilities, Jehovah's Witnesses and other political and religious opponents, which occurred regardless of whether they were of German or non-German ethnic origin.[8] Using this definition, the total number of civilians murdered by the Nazis is between 10 million and 11 million (around 5.7 million Jews[9] and a roughly equal number of non-Jews)." (Wikipedia)
The war is over. The Holocaust is over. Most of the Germans alive today weren't alive during the Holocaust. To blame them for Auschwitz is the same as blaming the grandchildren of the Confederate States for Andersonville.
"......Most of the Germans alive today weren't alive during the Holocaust. To blame them for Auschwitz....." Who said I was blaming any of today's generation of Germans for anything? What I was saying was that the greater German population of the day did have agood idea of a lot of the atrocities committed in the Holocaust, and therefore should not be absolved of blame. Unfortunately, there is a startling parallel at work today, with many revisionists airbrushing the history of the "Palestinian" refugees to somehow imply they were never at fault, when the reality is they are the people that conspired with neighbouring Arab countries to ethnicly cleanse the Jews trying to establish the UN-mandated state of Israel. Those that ignore history are prone to repeat it....
I didn't mean to imply that you were blaming Germany's current generation for anything. Sorry.
After having firmly made my point that 'most historians'' agree with me and refute you, I continued on with criticism of American Jews, Israelis and friends of Israel around the world who think Germany can be sucked dry paying reparations to the Jewish homeland and Jews not even alive during the Holocaust, payments which are then spent on arms so Israel can expand their borders.
It wasn't an intentional non sequitur.
A thesis on the creation of the problems of the Palestinians and the Israelis, the solution to it, and the assignment of blame is not going to found in a paragraph of a comment on a blog.
It's too daunting even for someone of your obvious ability.
"......who think Germany can be sucked dry paying reparations to the Jewish homeland....." Agreed, I think it's daft for compensation payments today for yesterday's atrocities, as long as those atrocities have been acknowledged, the victims or their families compensated, and the criminals involved still alive have been punished. As it is, the Reparations Agreement between Western Germany and Israel in the '50s was for KNOWN material claims, i.e., stuff known to have been stolen or destroyed by the Nazis in their persecution of the Jews. It did not forgive the Nazis their crimes. It also did not include any form of statement saying that later claims that came from either unknown German or Eastern European cases should be ignored, hence the cases where Jews are claiming for moneys stolen from Swiss bank accounts and damages for acts committed in Eastern Europe. The details of those crimes were neither known at the time of the Reparations Agreement nor were covered by it.
Either way, please do explain how Israelis "expands" their borders? Recently, Israel has unilaterally withdrawn from Gaza, shrinking their borders. The resulting terrorism from Gaza and constant rocket attacks on civillian targets are unlikely to encourage Israel to make a similar gesture again. If it is a sideways reference to the settlements in the West Bank, please do try and remember there is no international border between Israel and the West Bank, the next closest border is that with Jordan. But I'm guessing you saw no issue with Jordan's occupation and annexation of the West Bank and Eastern Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967. You do of course know that there were Jewish settlements, farms and villages in both teh West Bank and many Jewish neighbourhoods in that area before 1948, yes?
" It also did not include any form of statement saying that later claims that came from either unknown German or Eastern European cases should be ignored, hence the cases where Jews are claiming for moneys stolen from Swiss bank accounts and damages for acts committed in Eastern Europe. The details of those crimes were neither known at the time of the Reparations Agreement nor were covered by it."
Pretty amazing, isn't it? It will be over when the German taxpayer/voter decides the country has shelled out enough for what his grandfather may or may not have been responsible for. There's every expectation that the Israeli government and American Jews will try to push reparations into perpetuity.
I was under the impression that moneys stolen from Swiss bank accounts was stolen by the Swiss banks.
I should not have used the word 'border'. I meant that Israel was de facto expanding their borders.. But those little isles of Israeli citizens in disputed territory do not make a border.The word to use is frontier:
"A frontier is a political and geographical term referring to areas near or beyond a boundary. 'Frontier' was absorbed into English from French in the 15th century, with the meaning "borderland"--the region of a country that fronts on another country."
Although whatever word you use, it's going to be a mess there for some time to come.
"....It will be over when the German taxpayer/voter decides the country has shelled out enough for what his grandfather may or may not have been responsible for...." Payments under the orginal Reparations Agreement completed decades ago in the '60s. All new payments are for claims not covered by the original Reparations Agreement. Nowhere in the wording of the original Agreement is anything saying it covers unknown cases or that they should be ignored if they came to light. In 1952, when the Agreement was hammered out, no-one (except maybe they Germans and their collaborators in the occupied countries) knew the full extent of the atrocities committed.
".....There's every expectation that the Israeli government and American Jews will try to push reparations into perpetuity....." We will probably never know every single action committed during the Holocaust or by Nazis and their collaborators in occupied countries. But, where information does come to light about such actions, it is only right they be investigated, the criminals concerned that are still alive punished, and the victims compensated. I assume that if some case came to light of American forces having slaughtered Wehrmacht troops, you'd be just as keen to ignore the idea of punishing the American criminals still living, or compensating the Wehrmacht troopers' families?
"....I was under the impression that moneys stolen from Swiss bank accounts was stolen by the Swiss banks....." Yes, and where it was in collaboration with German bankers and companies, those German bankers and companies should be punished as well as the Swiss bankers and their companies. Again, we will probably never know the full extent of the complicity between the Swiss banks and Nazi Germany, but you are again grumbling about a case that has already been settled by the Volcker and Bergier commissions. Which bit is hard for you to follow, or is it that you just don't think Jews should get compensation because they are somehow less worthy just because they are Jews?
".....I meant that Israel was de facto expanding their borders...." Again, you supply no case to back up your argument. Assuming you are referring to the enlargement of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, I assume you would prefer they should not be allowed to expand further until some form of final two-state agreement is made between Israel and the Palestinians? That is unlikely as the Palestinians are refusing to attend talks, the Israelis have offered plenty of times. The Palestinian insistance on there being no settlement expansion before talks can commence is just avoidance, and seeing as the Obumbler administration isn't putting any pressure on the PLO, whilst at the same time letting the PLO suck up Western aid, it is likely the PLO will continue using the same avoidance tactic. Amusingly, I also assume you would object to the idea of a freeze on all Palestinian building in the West Bank until an agreement was finalised. After all, if the worry is that Israeli settlements might take future Palestinian land, until a final agreement is reached, who's to say land Palestinians might build on could actually end up as part of Israel. Better just to stop all Palestinian building then, right?
A long way from the orginal topic, but very illuminating as to your prejudices.
If you offend the guy that gets to choose what evidence is presented then you are at a disadvantage in the legal case that follows?
So, it all comes down to personal feelings rather than imperical evidence?
Yeah, Mannings screwed then.
But so is the US legal system. Clearly.
Personally, I would have instead argued that the pre-trial "judge" was too conditioned by military service and obeying orders to be able to empathise with Manning's motives. Just as much male bovine manure as the what Manning's lawyer is currently pedalling, but more likely to be effective to question if a career soldier - even a reservist - can go against the conditioning that an order is to be obeyed, and therefore cannot be anything other than pre-conditioned to consider Manning guilty. Same goes for the eventual military trial. Complete hogwash, of course, but given the Obumbler's paranoia of public opinion it could get a knee-jerk move to try Manning in a civil court rather than a military one, and that would give Manning's team much more freeway to play on. In a military court, IMHO, he's toast.
The difference is Dreyfuss wasn't guilty. Manning is.
The question this court is going to have to decide after Manning is found guilty, is how harmful Manning's actions were to the army and country and what his punishment should be.
Coombs motion for Lt. Col. Almanza to step down was not made because Coombs wanted Almanza out - to be replaced by an officer maybe even more unfair. It was made to warn the American people of the possibility of unfairness and remind Almanza of the importance of the case to the people and the country and to reactivate his sense of fairness not only to the army but to all the civilians who were lied to.
Please don't conflate Bradley Manning and Jonathan Pollard.
"The difference is Dreyfuss wasn't guilty....." OK, assuming you're not referring to Richard Dreyfuss (and some of his films are criminal, TBH), I have to assume this is an oblique reference to the Alfred Dreyfuss Affair, which has absolutley NOTHING in common with the Manning case. As evasions go it is rediculously weak. Dreyfuss was accused of leaking French military secrets to Prussia without any proof, and was later declared innocent. Dreyfuss was a career officer that wanted to serve in the French military and was accused simply because he was Jewish. Manning appears to have little desire to carry on his service in the US forces, and no-one has accused him simply because he is homosexual. The US authorities seem to have hard evidence that Manning committed the crimes he is accused of.
Jonathan Pollard also has absolutley zilch to do with Manning. Pollard was an active spy for a foreign government, Israel. That was proven in court, and as such he broke his oath when he joined the Naval Intelligence Service and the US law. Pollard also stole info on China to help his wife's business. Both charges were proven in court. Again, no-one accused Pollard just because he was Jewish. Pollard also had no "higher moral motive", he wasn't pretending to release secret information to the US general public - he was selling the info for cash and personal gain. Manning seems to have decided to give secrets to Dickileaks simply as part of a big tantrum at being unsuited to a career in the US military, and has dressed it up since as wanting to inform the public.
Please try harder, that was pathetic.
that one has sat in the prisoner's dock in a Military Court of Justice and one soon will.
And I mentioned Dreyfus (note the correct spelling of his name) not to compare Manning's case to his, but merely to give you one of the most egregious examples of military justice. Dreyus, being framed, fought to prove his innocence. Manning being guilty, will argue "no harm, no foul."
Also I wasn't comparing Manning to Pollard, except by their motivation. So thank you for making my point about Pollard: "Pollard also had no "higher moral motive", he wasn't pretending to release secret information to the US general public - he was selling the info for cash and personal gain.". While "Manning seems to have decided to give secrets to (Wikileaks) simply as part of a big tantrum at being unsuited to a career in the US military, and has dressed it up since as wanting to inform the public."
Lt. Col Alzmana will decide if Manning was throwing a tantrum. I personally doubt whether the word "tantrum" will appear in the court record.
Comparing Manning and Dreyfus is beyond apples and oranges, it's plain desperate. Dreyfus was the victim of racism, namely anti-semitism, whilst Manning is just a victim of his own stupidity. Dreyfus was a good student, eager to serve his country (France) and was a successful career officer, whereas Manning was only a grade above social reject before entering the military and his performance in uniform was hardly noteable. Dreyfus was tried without evidence on the basis of racism in a hasty trial, whereas the authorities took great care in gathering plenty of evidence against Manning.
Whilst Pollard was also given to Walter Mittey daydreaming, he was definately also in it for profit. At least Manning's stupidity seems to be just that without the further taint of greed. But neither Pollard or Dreyfus are even vaguely comparable to Manning.
LOCAL GROUP
Posted Thursday 22nd December 2011 17:36 GMT
"The only comparison between Manning and Dreyfus is."
that one has sat in the prisoner's dock in a Military Court of Justice and one soon will.
MATT BRYANT
Posted Thursday 22nd December 2011 23:51 GMT
"Comparing Manning and Dreyfus is beyond apples and oranges, it's plain desperate."
How can you say "Comparing Manning and Dreyfus is beyond apples and oranges" on
12/22/11 at 23:51 GMT ?
When I said the only comparison between Manning and Dreyfus is one has been in the dock and the other soon will be.
on 12/22/11 at 17:36 GMT.
Your dragging Dreyfus into the discussion was a very obvious attempt to ellevate Manning to someone being victimised for their homosexuality, when the reality is his homosexuality did not cause him to commit his crimes or to be accused of them. Dreyfus was a man of honour, he wanted to serve his country despite the injustice against him. Manning is the complete opposite.
To say that I dragged "Dreyfus into this discussion" is an unworthy comment on your part. How else was I to mention the most egregious military trial in modern times without mentioning the name of Alfred Dreyfus? Whose court martial and conviction tore France apart? And while we're on the subject, I doubt that you honor him and respect the ordeal he underwent more than I do. I read extensively about him when I was in high school (maybe even the 8th grade.) as early as 1953.
My earlier quote "Military justice is to justice as military music is to music," is attributed to George Clemenceau, who published "J'Accuse" by Zola in his paper. Zola had to flee France until the Dreyfus Affair was over
As far as Manning iis concerned, I'll reserve judgement until the trial is over before commenting on what his sentence should be. And I won't pay any attention to the rumor mongers who think they know how Manning's lawyers are going to argue his case
This trial will be held in a military court of Justice not on Greta von Sustern's cable show on Fox.
BTW, on the subject of Military Justice, if you haven't seen "Paths Of Glory" by Stanley Kubrick, by all means do.
".....How else was I to mention the most egregious military trial in modern times without mentioning the name of Alfred Dreyfus?...." So you want to "correct the record" by continuing an unfounded comparison? How is Dreyfus's case, where racism led to his conviction without any proof, comparable to Manning's case, where the legal process is being followed to the letter and Manning is not being accused because he happens to be a homosexual? Please do supply the tiniest shred of evidence that the process behind Manning's trial is tainted by prejudice against his homosexuality. You can't, hence your evasive "correcting".
".....I read extensively about him when I was in high school (maybe even the 8th grade.) as early as 1953....." Yet you compare his case to Manning's? Dreyfus was a man of honour, his actual request upon being released was for his honour to be restored, quote: "The government of the Republic has given me back my freedom. It is nothing for me without my honor." Manning wouldn't know honour if it kicked him in the backside. Dreyfus, despite the crimes committed against him, volunteered to serve his country again in WW1, once again forging a successful career as an officer. The idea of Manning doing anything other than fading into obscurity, or maybe getting his fifteen minutes of fame "protesting" as some figurehead for fruitloops like Code Pink, is laughable.
"......"Paths Of Glory" by Stanley Kubrick...." Hilariously predictable! More of the standard, anti-war boilerplate. Please do illustrate how Manning was involved in "suicidal attacks" - he had a REMF job in relative comfort, relatively far from any danger. Proof of this is that Manning's superior ordered that Manning's weapon be taken from him as he was consideed the greatest danger to himself, long before he was even suspected of being the leak. Manning never faced incoming fire in the frontline, nor had to particiapte in an infantry assult, so to compare him to French soldiers that buckled after a number of such WW1 actions is a farcial attempt to elevate Manning from anything other than a sulking brat throwing a tantrum. Please again supply anything that would suggest any incredible hardship or danger in Manning's role that would give him such relative claim to disobey orders as the French troops used as the basis of Kubrick's film. Good luck with that "correcting" of reality!
You are making no headway with your shrill complaint that the court martial of Bradley Manning and Alfred Dreyfus are not comparable.
They may not be held in the same courtroom with the same judges and lawyers. They may not be governed by the same rules and laws of the armies of the same countries. They may not involve the same charges of espionage and maleficence. One is over and done. The other is just getting started. But that they both were or will be "military trials" is undeniable. Isn't a bed bug comparable to giant redwood?
Mahatma Gandhi was a vegetarian. Adolph Hitler was a vegetarian. I officially compare their diets. Try not to lose sleep about it.
I was only saying was that Courts Martial and military justice have, in many instances, unsavory reputations and outcomes. Whether it was Alfred Dreyfus' first or second court martial. In the first one they convicted the Jew instead of the aristocrat. In the second one, the court knew Dreyfus to be innocent but they convicted him a second time anyway.
"Hilariously Predictable." How charming.
I wonder if you spilled your box of pop corn all over the floor laughing when the three French soldiers before the firing squad were struck down not by German bullets with their names on them, but by French ones?
You probably liked it when Achilles ties him to his chariot and drags Hector around the walls of Troy, no?
Then there's punishment in the English Navy. "Flogging round the fleet" is always a source of merriment. Google it.
"The severest form of flogging was a 'flogging round the fleet'. The number of lashes was divided by the number of ships in port and the offender was rowed between ships for each ship's company to witness the punishment." Penalties of hundreds of lashes were imposed for the gravest offences, including sedition and mutiny. The prisoner was rowed 'round the fleet in an open boat and received a number of his lashes at each ship in turn, for as long as the surgeon allowed.
The internet offers you years of entertainment on the subject of man's inhumanity to man. You're a lucky man.
So, you want to smear the modern US military justice system by comparison with a historic case with completely no similarities from a completely different country, the alleged actions of Achilles at Troy (remember, we have no corroboration for the account given by Homer), a fictional film based very loosely on real events in a different country again, and then a bizarre reference to old punishments of the Royal Navy! Beyond desperation! Please do demonstrate how Manning faces lashing? I suggest you just give up now before you make yourself look really, really stupid. Too late for just looking stupid, that boat has sailed. Your desperate, evasive reply is not really worth an answer.
Instead, a little festive humour which will no doubt upset your tender, PC sensibilities. Anyway, to set teh scene - Manning is in his low-security prison, without suicide watch, and, depressed at having to spend Christmas away from home, manages to take his own life. To his suprise, given the presumed nobility of his previous actions, St Peter sends him down to Hell. Our dejected "hero" arrives to met by a surprisingly chipper Devil:
"Hi, welcome to Hell! Hey, why the long face? This place is great! We have loads of Marines down here and they LOVE it! Much better than sitting on a cold cloud and strumming a harp every day until the end of eternity. Here we get to have fun! Do you actually know what we get up to down here?"
Manning, quite depressed, shakes his head.
"Well," starts the Devil, clapping him warmly on the shoulder, "sir, do you like drinking?"
"Sure," admits Manning, "I did like a drink."
"You are going to LOVE Mondays then! On Mondays we sit around and drink ourselves silly. Any drink you like - beer, spirits, cocktails - all you have to do is think of the drink and it's there in your hand! And no need to worry about hangovers or your liver, you're already dead! Do you like smoking dope?"
Manning is starting to warm to the idea now: "Well, I was a student before I was a Marine!"
"You're gonna LOOOOVE Tuesdays then!" says Ol' Nick. "We have the best ganja growers in the World down here. All day long we get high as kites! Do you like telling a tall tale or two?"
Manning blushes and smiles: "Well, I was a Marine, I have been know to shoot a line and stretch the truth a little before."
"Great!" says the Devil. "On Wednesdays we just tell stories all day! Dirty stories, wild tales, impossible endings, we have it ALL! I mean, we have oodles of journalists down here, they're just great at making stuff up! And then all the best writers in history were all libertines, just wait until you meet Hemmingway. And you can lie and embellish as much as you like! If you want to tell us you had Hilary Clinton in the Oval Office you can. Until Bill gets down here, no-one's going to complain."
Manning is starting to think he's hit gold! Until the Devil goes on: "And the best day, the one that goes down the best with the other Marines? Well that would be Thursday! So, do you like girls?"
Matt Bryant follows that up with a joke 49 lines long. Yet another contradiction in his thinking.
No corroberation of the account Homer gives of the Greeks at Troy. I guess there are no lessons to be learned there. Or from the Odyssey. Or Genesis and Exodus. Back to Neander Valley, eh Matt? We were all so happy there.
Please tell me where I said Manning faced flogging round the fleet. I was just feeding your inner sadistic enlightened being. Blood and bones for 2012. And it worked. This must be the first time you haven't mentioned my unfounded comparison of Dreyfus and Manning.
<< "you want to smear the modern US military justice system by comparison with a historic case with completely no similarities from a completely different country" >>
I don't enjoy smearing anyone. However, where the offense lies , let the great ax fall.
1932 The Tuskegee Syphilis Study begins. 200 black airmen diagnosed with syphilis are never told of their illness, are denied treatment, and instead are used as human guinea pigs in order to follow the progression and symptoms of the disease. They all subsequently die from syphilis, their families never told that they could have been treated.
1935 The Pellagra Incident. After millions of individuals die from Pellagra over a span of two decades, the U.S. Public Health Service finally acts to stem the disease. The director of the agency admits it had known for at least 20 years that Pellagra is caused by a niacin deficiency but failed to act since most of the deaths occured within poverty-striken black populations.
1940 Four hundred prisoners in Chicago are infected with Malaria in order to study the effects of new and experimental drugs to combat the disease. Nazi doctors later on trial at Nuremberg cite this American study to defend their own actions during the Holocaust.
1942 Chemical Warfare Services begins mustard gas experiments on approximately 4,000 servicemen. The experiments continue until 1945 and made use of Seventh Day Adventists who chose to become human guinea pigs rather than serve on active duty.
1943 In response to Japan's full-scale germ warfare program, the U.S. begins research on biological weapons at Fort Detrick, MD.
1944 U.S. Navy uses human subjects to test gas masks and clothing. Individuals were locked in a gas chamber and exposed to mustard gas and lewisite.
1945 Project Paperclip is initiated. The U.S. State Department, Army intelligence, and the CIA recruit Nazi scientists and offer them immunity and secret identities in exchange for work on top secret government projects in the United States.
1945 "Program F" is implemented by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). This is the most extensive U.S. study of the health effects of fluoride, which was the key chemical component in atomic bomb production. One of the most toxic chemicals known to man, fluoride, it is found, causes marked adverse effects to the central nervous system but much of the information is squelched in the name of national security because of fear that lawsuits would undermine full-scale production of atomic bombs.
1946 Patients in VA hospitals are used as guinea pigs for medical experiments. In order to allay suspicions, the order is given to change the word "experiments" to "investigations" or "observations" whenever reporting a medical study performed in one of the nation's veteran's hospitals.
1947 Colonel E.E. Kirkpatrick of the U.S. Atomic Energy Comission issues a secret document (Document 07075001, January 8, 1947) stating that the agency will begin administering intravenous doses of radioactive substances to human subjects.
1947 The CIA begins its study of LSD as a potential weapon for use by American intelligence. Human subjects (both civilian and military) are used with and without their knowledge.
1950 Department of Defense begins plans to detonate nuclear weapons in desert areas and monitor downwind residents for medical problems and mortality rates.
1950 I n an experiment to determine how susceptible an American city would be to biological attack, the U.S. Navy sprays a cloud of bacteria from ships over San Franciso. Monitoring devices are situated throughout the city in order to test the extent of infection. Many residents become ill with pneumonia-like symptoms.
1951 Department of Defense begins open air tests using disease-producing bacteria and viruses. Tests last through 1969 and there is concern that people in the surrounding areas have been exposed.
1953 U.S. military releases clouds of zinc cadmium sulfide gas over Winnipeg, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Fort Wayne, the Monocacy River Valley in Maryland, and Leesburg, Virginia. Their intent is to determine how efficiently they could disperse chemical agents.
1953 Joint Army-Navy-CIA experiments are conducted in which tens of thousands of people in New York and San Francisco are exposed to the airborne germs Serratia marcescens and Bacillus glogigii.
There's a lot more crap here:http://www.rense.com/general36/history.htm
When you get to Valhalla, send us an email and let us know who's there and who isn't.
<Yawn> Oh, you finally finished that torrent of male bovine manure? Now, concentrate real hard and try and tell us all what any of that has to do with Manning? Here's a hint - think of a whole number between one and minus one, then make it big and fat....
The reason I posted a joke was because there really wasn't anything in your prior post worth countering, and your last post is also just as empty of relevant content. Educational, maybe, but SFA to do with Manning and his team's failed attempt to get the pre-trial judge disqualified. Try again! A truly epic fail.
Last Wednesday you wrote: "In a military court, IMHO, he's (Manning) toast."
Last Thursday I responded: "Sure, Manning is toast in a military court. So was Dreyfus."
So blasted off one of the great hissy fits of the year.
If you can not prove the statement: "So was Dreyfus," to be wrong, man up and admit it. If you can, let's hear your proof and I'll admit I'm wrong.
Forget their shoe size; the color of their hair; the country of their birth; what they were charged with; what they enjoyed doing in bed. The officers and country of their Courts.
MB "In a Military Court, he's (Manning) toast.
LG "So was Dreyfus."
Show me "So was Dreyfus" is not an accurate statement and where I err.
More like circling back when your last stream of male bovine manure has been shown to be just that.
"......If you can not prove the statement: "So was Dreyfus," to be wrong...." Easy. Dreyfus was toast before he went into his courtroom because the endemic anti-semitism of the French officers trying him made them blind to the idea that he could be anything other than guilty. In Manning's case, it is quite the opposite - the authorities are going out of their way to make it clear his homosexuality has no bearing on their deliberations. Manning will get a fair trial, he hasn't been rushed into a quick showtrial, instead there has been a long and painstaking investigation. Manning is toast simply because, looking at the evidence that is available, there is plenty of proof of his criminal actions, and no career military officer (which is what the jury and trying panel will be made up of) will see it as justifiable disobeiance of an order. I predict they will see it as nothing other than straight treason, unjustified by Manning's situation unless he wants to plead diminshed responsibility.
One day maybe?
The free world will stand and say: you did the right thing. It is a moral, just and responsible action that you took and here is your medal of honour from the free world?
Or would that be inciting too much? Expecting too much?
The trouble with rules and laws is that often times the people given duty to make sure rules and laws are upheld often get so literal that interpretation undoes and confounds the reason why the rule or law was entered into being in the first place.
People make rules and laws.
Manning doesn't have a snowball chance in Hell of being acquitted for his crimes so he had better get use to prison life. His defense team is blaming his homosexuality as the cause for him releasing thousands of military documents to Wikileaks including a video which they found in his quarters.
The logic (sic) is that the military is at fault for allowing Manning access to top secret documents as part of his job because he is confused and doesn't understand if he is cross-gendered. As I said, not a snowball chance in Hell of slithering out of life in prison.
".....His defense team is blaming his homosexuality....." This is a big mistake, there are plenty of serving homosexuals that wouldn't think of committing treachery. Whilst "don't ask, don't tell" wasn't anything more than a way of hiding the inherently heterosexual nature of forces life (except maybe the navy, eh, Lewis), it has allowed many gays to serve in the US forces and forge successful careers. All they have to do is find a soldier that served in a similar role and is openly gay (presumably having left the service), and then get them to testify that their homosexuality did not make them feel the need to commit treason, sinking Manning's defence team's argument.
"......the military is at fault for allowing Manning access to top secret documents....." That is true to an extent, in that Manning slipped through the checks that should have picked up his evident psychological problems, but hindsight is always 20-20. I'm sure an element of political correctness also came into play, with no-one wanting to point out his possible unsuitability for fear of being labelled anti-gay. But, whilst the system failed in putting Manning in a position where he had access to secrets, it was his greater failure in his decision to commit the crime of giving those secrets to others. No-one forced Manning to do what he is accused of. Well, unless you want to argue that A$$nut had some form of mind control or blackmailed Manning. Mind you, the US authorities would love to tie Manning and A$$nut to some pre-crime communications that could imply A$$nut encouraged or even instigated the crime.
Your opinions on the Manning Case are cute but pretty far removed from reality.
"But, legal experts said, an absence of exculpatory evidence now could also mean that Manning’s defense team is reserving its strongest argument for an eventual court-martial of the soldier, legal experts said."
“They’re keeping their powder dry,” said Michael J. Navarre, a military law expert and former lieutenant commander in the Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps. “Why preview your case in a proceeding you’re probably not going to win anyway?”
Sorry, no previews.
All we know is from the pretrial hearing. Defense lawyers don't sit around in bars telling everyone who will listen: 'yes, we'll be arguing the 'habeus gayus corpus" defense.'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/defense-rests-in-manning-trial/2011/12/21/gIQAaHtJAP_story.html
I imagine that Manning's defense team will argue that if there had not been DADT, the Army could have asked him pertinent questions about his assignment as it related to his homosexuality and he would have been able to go to his senior officer with any problems that related to his sexual orientation.
But don't let this ruin any auto de fe you were planning on celebrating . Buy a few stakes and a couple of bundles of faggots; if Manning gets off easy, we're probably going have a chilly Februrary and you can use them to keep your Manor toasty.
I suggest you stop trying to obscure the real information with unfounded supposition.
"......I imagine that Manning's defense team will argue that if there had not been DADT, the Army could have asked him pertinent questions about his assignment as it related to his homosexuality and he would have been able to go to his senior officer with any problems that related to his sexual orientation....." How did being homosexual in any way disqualify Manning from actually completing the job given him in line with his orders and the security rules he had taken an oath to follow? It didn't. For all you know, other gays may have been in exactly the same role and not committed the crimes Manning is accused of. Also, how do you know the superior officer was not sympathetic to gays? As I have stated before, there are many homosexuals that have served in the US forces and many still serving, and yet only one case like Manning's. Stop trying to imply that the issue is linked to his homosexuality, it is insulting to gays. The true cause is only due to Manning's character or lack thereof.
I'm pretty sure we've only heard some pre-trial stuff and the trial hasn't started yet.
Did his defense team open a premature argument to the military court or are they just floating a trial balloon?
In re his homosexuality, was the video they found in his quarters gay porn? (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
The military was at fault allowing him access to top secret docs. At any rate, Coombs should try the 'Phaeton' defense: "Here Phaëthon lies who drove the Sun-god's chariot. Greatly he failed, but greatly he dared."
Or as George W Bush would say: "Never send a boy to do a man's job".
>Time for Manning to be held accoutable for treason.<
'At times, the term "traitor" has been levelled as a political epithet, regardless of any verifiable treasonable action. In a civil war or insurrection, the winners may deem the losers to be traitors. Likewise the term "traitor" is used in heated political discussion – typically as a slur against political dissidents, or against officials in power who are perceived as failing to act in the best interest of their constituents. In certain cases, as with the German Dolchstoßlegende, the accusation of treason towards a large group of people can be a unifying political message.' Wikipedia
What do you know, the Constitution has a whole section devoted just to 'treason.' Why waste your time deciding what it means when we pay 9 Justices of the Supreme Court to do so.
The bottom line though, AC, is that the meaning of words 'treason' and 'traitor' is in the purview of the lexicographer.
And in Manning's case, decided by the 'convening authority.'
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
