PDA

View Full Version : PFC Manning Hero?



buzz211
12-10-2010, 01:04 PM
I ran across this yesterday I am surprised that no one has posted about it yet.
Off the news wires:

Amid calls from some politicians to press treason charges -- which could carry the death penalty -- against whoever leaked secret cables to WikiLeaks, the Berkeley, Calif., entertaining a resolution to declare that an Army private accused of leaking some classified information to the website is an American hero.
City Peace and Justice Commissioner Bob Meola, who authored the resolution, told the San Francisco Chronicle that Pfc. Bradley Manning, 22, is a patriot who deserves a medal.
"If he did what he's accused of doing, he's a patriot and should get a medal," Meola told the newspaper. "I think the war criminals should be the ones prosecuted, not the whistle-blowers."
Manning -- accused of leaking a video that depicted an Army helicopter attack that left 11 people dead in Baghdad and widely suspected of leaking hundreds of thousands of secret cables to WikiLeaks -- is currently being held in a Virginia military brig.
And that's where he belongs, say members of a national veterans group, who call the Berkeley resolution "appalling."
Ryan Gallucci, a spokesman for AMVETS, which represents roughly 180,000 U.S. veterans, said the City Council "would be wise" to vote down the resolution in support of Manning. A city commission has already approved the measure, and the Berkeley City Council will vote on it on Tuesday.
"AMVETS believes it would be appalling to commend someone like Bradley Manning, who has betrayed his country and disgraced the uniform," Gallucci wrote in a statement to FoxNews.com. "Manning not only compromised American interests across the globe, but he has blood on his hands for our Afghan allies sought out by the Taliban from the first leak."
Gallucci said Berkeley lawmakers should be "ashamed" that the proposal ever surfaced.
Manning, who has not commented publicly on his case, faces up to 52 years in prison if convicted of leaking the video. Though widely suspected, he has not been charged in connection with the release of hundreds of thousands of classified military documents to WikiLeaks, many of which have been released in the last couple of weeks.
His civilian attorney, David Coombs, did not return a call seeking comment. Army officials also did not immediately comment when reached by FoxNews.com.
But Jeff Paterson, an organizer for the Bradley Manning Support Network, said he's "hopeful" the Berkeley resolution will pass.
"I believe he's a hero," Paterson said. "There's an international witch hunt against WikiLeaks and if Bradley Manning is the source of the material, he needs all of our support."
Paterson, who will attend Tuesday's vote along with Meola, says he considers the resolution's chances of passing to be "50-50."
James Carafano, national security expert at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Washington, said he considered the resolution to be jumping the gun.
"First of all, someone is innocent until proven guilty," Carafano said. "And the investigation is not done. They're kind of pre-judging the judicial system -- at least wait and see what evidence and charges are presented. They have no evidence to base this judgment on."
If Manning is ultimately charged and proven guilty of leaking the sensitive documents, Carafano said, the resolution could be construed as encouraging millions of U.S. military officials with access to sensitive information to disseminate that material.
"I'm a great lover of democracy and I'm a great lover of federalism," he said. "But if people of that city want to earn the disdain of other Americans, that's their right. If these people want to vote against the crowd, have at it.
"The most kind and generous thing you could say is that it's completely irresponsible."

All I can say is Wow are these people for real?

Jumper5
12-10-2010, 01:18 PM
http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?1588560-Berkeley-honoring-Pfc.-Manning

imported_SWOUSA
12-10-2010, 02:57 PM
Simply a traitor that should get life or the death penalty.

buzz211
12-10-2010, 06:13 PM
Found some additional info on Manning:
More off the wires:
HAGERSTOWN, Md. -- A support group for the Soldier suspected of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks says it hasn't received the anti-secrecy group's promised contribution to his legal defense fund. Oakland, Calif.-based Courage to Resist says WikiLeaks agreed in July to cover about half of Pfc. Bradley Manning's defense fees, about $50,000. Project director Jeff Paterson said Wednesday that a German charity official aligned with WikiLeaks told him they now plan to contribute about $20,000 for Manning's defense. Paterson says it hasn't arrived yet. A WikiLeaks spokesman didn't immediately respond to queries from The Associated Press. Manning is being held at the Marine Corps Base in Quantico, Va.
Has anyone checked out this “Courage to Resist” web site? If you have not it will P@## you off. Their whole web site is a tribute to all the people who bailed on their buddies in time of war, they (CtoR) call them “Hero’s” instead of what they truly are “Cowards”. Manning has dishonored himself and his comrades!

buzz211
12-10-2010, 06:13 PM
Found some additional info on Manning:
More off the wires:
HAGERSTOWN, Md. -- A support group for the Soldier suspected of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks says it hasn't received the anti-secrecy group's promised contribution to his legal defense fund. Oakland, Calif.-based Courage to Resist says WikiLeaks agreed in July to cover about half of Pfc. Bradley Manning's defense fees, about $50,000. Project director Jeff Paterson said Wednesday that a German charity official aligned with WikiLeaks told him they now plan to contribute about $20,000 for Manning's defense. Paterson says it hasn't arrived yet. A WikiLeaks spokesman didn't immediately respond to queries from The Associated Press. Manning is being held at the Marine Corps Base in Quantico, Va.
Has anyone checked out this “Courage to Resist” web site? If you have not it will P@## you off. Their whole web site is a tribute to all the people who bailed on their buddies in time of war, they (CtoR) call them “Hero’s” instead of what they truly are “Cowards”. Manning has dishonored himself and his comrades!

MACHINE666
12-10-2010, 06:35 PM
I say he deserves a (cow) pie in the face for his actions. Humiliation works so much better than corporal punishment.

onemaingun
12-12-2010, 07:59 AM
To whom it may concern, I for one can say PFC Manning is indeed an individual of good moral character. He did what others should have but did not have the courage to do. Are you all such war mongers that you have forgotten what your oath stands for? Or do you wish or reject the idea of having domestic enemies?

I want to to refresh your memories.

"I, _____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States, the governor of the state of _______ (for National Guard enlistees) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Some of you might say that he was to follow the orders of the officers appointed over him. That is only true to some degree. If crimes were committed and then a "COVER UP" followed by an erroneous investigation. Which sadly happens on a weekly basis. Then the order is unlawful. General Military Authority overrides much my friends.

The real crime that is committed are the individuals that try to cover things up. To save their own careers. You call it what you want. I can tell you honestly that the war in Iraq is the biggest load of shit, followed by a side order of extra shitty also known as Afghanistan.

What amuses me ever more is how many of you stand behind our government and our senior officers. What? You think they carry a badge of justice on their chests and walk around with halos over their heads? I think not, guess what.... they don't give two shits about you, me and the man next to you. But they will send you to any country that they have a particular problem or there preconceived agenda is for that country. Dick Cheney was quoted as to say "We were going to invade Iraq anyway." WoW just WoW.

So here we sit with two conflicts, a waining economy, the largest national debt our country has ever seen, 800 billion dollar defense budget, and our own people are suffering on a daily basis. But you will call this young PFC a traitor. The traitors are the ones who are calling the shots and covering it up. Keep the war machine running for their agendas, tune in to CNN and believe what your told to believe. God only knows a third of you are actually capable of critical thinking and the rest of you will roll over on your backs when the master tells you to do so.

Luckily for me I will not be an indentured servant to the government for much longer. It just took a decade to wake up.

Suggested reading for some of you.

American History
The Bill of Rights / The United States Constitution

Perhaps then you some of you can form a rational conclusion.

itty1979
12-12-2010, 09:39 AM
I think that Manning(not going to use rank that isn't deserved) should be locked up adn thrown in Gen Pop, or put to death whichever longer. For all that agree with what he did and think that everyone needs to know everyone else's secrets, why don't you share your secrets with the world first. Secrets are kept for reasons; embarassment, not to upset others, to save others, etc., etc.

If you have no secrets that you are keeping from others than you have not risked anything. For the majority of people alive fail at everything they try, and we do not want all of our failures to be of public knowledge.

So again I say what ehe did, no matter the reason is still wrong. He HAS cause embarrassment to himself, his uniform, and his country.

onemaingun
12-12-2010, 11:28 AM
I think that Manning(not going to use rank that isn't deserved) should be locked up adn thrown in Gen Pop, or put to death whichever longer. For all that agree with what he did and think that everyone needs to know everyone else's secrets, why don't you share your secrets with the world first. Secrets are kept for reasons; embarassment, not to upset others, to save others, etc., etc.

If you have no secrets that you are keeping from others than you have not risked anything. For the majority of people alive fail at everything they try, and we do not want all of our failures to be of public knowledge.

So again I say what ehe did, no matter the reason is still wrong. He HAS cause embarrassment to himself, his uniform, and his country.

So the correct answer would be to imprison or put an individual to death for having integrity? Let me ask you a few simple questions. Do you uphold our governments agenda by using its armed forces in secret and carrying out military operations outside of the realms of known conflict? Would you agree or disagree that it perpetuates further conflict and enrages those local nationals in those respective countries? Wouldn't you consider that kind of secrecy a crime to the american people? Let me ask you this. Have you ever presented a flag to a wife, a father, a mother? People have the right to know of any wrong doing.

Justified secret material as I have stated before would be that of advanced weapons, communications technology, radar, new forms of encryption data and of course military operations. But be wise to what I just said in terms of military operations. If an operation is a success and in the confines of a known conflict and no crimes have been committed and the reports are accurate then by all means if it warrants to be kept classified keep it that way.

But the point many of us are trying to get through your THICK skulls is when WAR CRIMES or other types of WRONG DOING has occurred which is NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE then it should not be possible to classify it.

But thats the problem isn't? PFC Manning released some footage etc and someone was caught with their pants down. And that's where the irony lies isn't it. Here is another great example, Pat Tillman. Do I need to say more?

You stated secrets are kept for reasons. I do not think embarrassment is a justifiable reason to classify something. To not to upset others? Hmm again like Pat Tillman? To save others? You mean to save others careers at the expense of whom?

I hate to break this to you all you work for the american people.

KellyinAvon
12-12-2010, 11:54 AM
That's American people, not american people. Laws concerning espionage have been around a long time (are constitutional in other words), just ask the Rosenbergs. Oh wait, we can't, we executed them.

Shrike
12-12-2010, 12:04 PM
Simply a traitor that should get life or the death penalty.

How can a non-American citizen be a traitor?

itty1979
12-12-2010, 02:04 PM
[B] Let me ask you this. Have you ever presented a flag to a wife, a father, a mother?

Yes I have presented the flag to mothers, fathers, wives, and children. I have carried the caskets for fallen teamates, heard them calling over the radio during attacks. Do not question where my Loyalties lie. I should question yours.

I have not read anything on wikkileaks myself, I will say that. Now you may say know your facts before you speak, but the facts that I do know is I am here to protect the people of my country, my fellow brothers and sisters in arms. And if information that was not supposed to be said about country X is said, and we have people there. Do you not think that country X may retaliate? Causing further deaths because a leaked secret, those are the lives that I was talking about.

As far as war crime, yes I do believe that if a person commited war crimes they need to be punished, I am not that ignorant as to believe our, or any other government has it's share of cover ups, and if you believe that any Govt. doesn't you are nieve. But classified is classified. If I found your deep dark secret, something that would embarass you or show that you have done wrong would you like me to put it up for the world to see?

buzz211
12-12-2010, 02:48 PM
Justify it all you want!
But Manning violated the Espionage Act of 1917 he was a low level Intel analyst probably working in a Battalion S-2 somewhere. The amount of information that he “Allegedly” (for the time being) passed on was way above his pay grade.
How easy is it to get into the State Department servers and pull out that much information? I have worked on SIPR allot and I would not know how to access any other “Networks” than the one I am on. (You Intel guys out there –how easy is it to get into another network say from a Battalion level?) I am sure that he did not just “stumble” upon this information by “accident”.
This kid purposely dug for that information it was his intent to get it and send it out that has been confirmed by the MIT student / Grad? That turned Manning into the Feds. Manning himself crowed on blog that he wanted to create anarchy. So this guy is a Hero I do not think so! Justify all you want but Manning betrayed the trust of his fellow soldier’s plain and simple there is no denying that! You cannot spin that one!
America may not be the most perfect country out there, but it is the best by far.
I have devoted my entire adult life to protect it! I have no regrets

imported_SWOUSA
12-12-2010, 05:45 PM
Shrike,

How is PFC Manning not an American Citizen?

ITSMYNAVY
12-12-2010, 10:35 PM
I think that Manning(not going to use rank that isn't deserved) should be locked up adn thrown in Gen Pop, or put to death whichever longer. For all that agree with what he did and think that everyone needs to know everyone else's secrets, why don't you share your secrets with the world first. Secrets are kept for reasons; embarassment, not to upset others, to save others, etc., etc.

If you have no secrets that you are keeping from others than you have not risked anything. For the majority of people alive fail at everything they try, and we do not want all of our failures to be of public knowledge.

So again I say what ehe did, no matter the reason is still wrong. He HAS cause embarrassment to himself, his uniform, and his country.

So the correct answer would be to imprison or put an individual to death for having integrity? Let me ask you a few simple questions. Do you uphold our governments agenda by using its armed forces in secret and carrying out military operations outside of the realms of known conflict? Would you agree or disagree that it perpetuates further conflict and enrages those local nationals in those respective countries? Wouldn't you consider that kind of secrecy a crime to the american people? Let me ask you this. Have you ever presented a flag to a wife, a father, a mother? People have the right to know of any wrong doing.

Justified secret material as I have stated before would be that of advanced weapons, communications technology, radar, new forms of encryption data and of course military operations. But be wise to what I just said in terms of military operations. If an operation is a success and in the confines of a known conflict and no crimes have been committed and the reports are accurate then by all means if it warrants to be kept classified keep it that way.

But the point many of us are trying to get through your THICK skulls is when WAR CRIMES or other types of WRONG DOING has occurred which is NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE then it should not be possible to classify it.

But thats the problem isn't? PFC Manning released some footage etc and someone was caught with their pants down. And that's where the irony lies isn't it. Here is another great example, Pat Tillman. Do I need to say more?

You stated secrets are kept for reasons. I do not think embarrassment is a justifiable reason to classify something. To not to upset others? Hmm again like Pat Tillman? To save others? You mean to save others careers at the expense of whom?

I hate to break this to you all you work for the american people.

A true "Citizen" will not embarrass his/her country nor should that person perform irrevocable harm to other citizens of said country. You in my opinion are just as much a traitor as this numbnut as are the people in good ole SF who feel that he did nothing wrong. Keep talking but I think that you are wasting your time. I have lurked here long enough to know that most are very proud to serve and do not take lightly those who taint over 200 years of honorable history.

garhkal
12-13-2010, 06:46 AM
How can a non-American citizen be a traitor?

He is in england, switzerland (or is it sweeden) and both are signatories of NATO.. heck iirc so is australia.

TJMAC77SP
12-13-2010, 11:18 AM
He is in england, switzerland (or is it sweeden) and both are signatories of NATO.. heck iirc so is australia.

You didn't take much history or political science in HS did you?

((or geography for that matter)

MrMiracle
12-13-2010, 01:14 PM
If Manning was really concerned about the helicopter attack, he could have moved the video through one of the several pre-established processes for reporting such incidents (such as the IG).

Instead, he (allegedly) handed the video and a large number of other files over to an outside organization in the hopes of turning himself into some sort of hacker rock-star.

One course of action is clearly the more responsible of the two.

03WikiLuLz
12-14-2010, 05:57 AM
Did anyone read the leak on US funded DynCorp? U.S. government contractor DynCorp threw a party for Afghan security recruits featuring trafficked boys as the entertainment. Bacha bazi is the Afghan tradition of "boy play" where young boys are dressed up in women's clothing, forced to dance for leering men, and then sold for sex to the highest bidder. the evidence linking DynCorp to bacha bazi was so damning, Afghan Minister of the Interior Hanif Atmar tried to quash the story. Upon hearing a journalist was investigating DynCorp and the U.S. government's funding of the sex trafficking of young boys in Afghanistan, Atmar warned any publication of the story would "endanger lives," and requested the U.S. suppress the story.

Damn son.....Our money goes to sex-trafficking of little boys.....and you think think what he did was wrong?!

TJMAC77SP
12-14-2010, 11:30 AM
Did anyone read the leak on US funded DynCorp? U.S. government contractor DynCorp threw a party for Afghan security recruits featuring trafficked boys as the entertainment. Bacha bazi is the Afghan tradition of "boy play" where young boys are dressed up in women's clothing, forced to dance for leering men, and then sold for sex to the highest bidder. the evidence linking DynCorp to bacha bazi was so damning, Afghan Minister of the Interior Hanif Atmar tried to quash the story. Upon hearing a journalist was investigating DynCorp and the U.S. government's funding of the sex trafficking of young boys in Afghanistan, Atmar warned any publication of the story would "endanger lives," and requested the U.S. suppress the story.

Damn son.....Our money goes to sex-trafficking of little boys.....and you think think what he did was wrong?!

Was that 'story' in the Wikileaks postings?

Guard Bum
12-14-2010, 02:26 PM
PFC Manning is the poster-child for the "repeal DADT" crowd. A disgruntled gay, he felt it necessary to lash out at the Army and America since he did not fit in. Is this who we want serving?

Thank you, PFC Manning, for proving our point about allowing gays to openly serve.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-14-2010, 03:35 PM
Again, no proof.

03WikiLuLz
12-14-2010, 06:34 PM
I'lll just leave these here....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/213720

http://humantrafficking.change.org/blog/view/wikileaks_reveals_us_tax_dollars_fund_child_sex_sl avery_in_afghanistan#share_source

Im not saying what he did was correct, he endangered our people, but some things should be shed to light.....and this is one of them.

TJMAC77SP
12-14-2010, 07:52 PM
I'lll just leave these here....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/213720

http://humantrafficking.change.org/blog/view/wikileaks_reveals_us_tax_dollars_fund_child_sex_sl avery_in_afghanistan#share_source

Im not saying what he did was correct, he endangered our people, but some things should be shed to light.....and this is one of them.

Two things.................

The only source of this story is the 'cable' posted on Wikileaks. What happened to the reporter's story? The US official obviously was not going to go along with the request so the US evidently didn't quash the story.

I have never heard of the title "Assistant Ambassador" in the US Foreign Service. There are DCM (Deputy Chief of Mission) and Assistant Chief of Mission but not Assistant Ambassador. I would think a cable originating from the US State Department would use the correct title.

candycane3482
12-14-2010, 09:46 PM
http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?1588560-Berkeley-honoring-Pfc.-Manning

Somebody did post it on here actually - I think in Army?

candycane3482
12-14-2010, 09:52 PM
To whom it may concern, I for one can say PFC Manning is indeed an individual of good moral character. He did what others should have but did not have the courage to do. Are you all such war mongers that you have forgotten what your oath stands for? Or do you wish or reject the idea of having domestic enemies?

I want to to refresh your memories.

"I, _____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States, the governor of the state of _______ (for National Guard enlistees) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Some of you might say that he was to follow the orders of the officers appointed over him. That is only true to some degree. If crimes were committed and then a "COVER UP" followed by an erroneous investigation. Which sadly happens on a weekly basis. Then the order is unlawful. General Military Authority overrides much my friends.

The real crime that is committed are the individuals that try to cover things up. To save their own careers. You call it what you want. I can tell you honestly that the war in Iraq is the biggest load of shit, followed by a side order of extra shitty also known as Afghanistan.

What amuses me ever more is how many of you stand behind our government and our senior officers. What? You think they carry a badge of justice on their chests and walk around with halos over their heads? I think not, guess what.... they don't give two shits about you, me and the man next to you. But they will send you to any country that they have a particular problem or there preconceived agenda is for that country. Dick Cheney was quoted as to say "We were going to invade Iraq anyway." WoW just WoW.

So here we sit with two conflicts, a waining economy, the largest national debt our country has ever seen, 800 billion dollar defense budget, and our own people are suffering on a daily basis. But you will call this young PFC a traitor. The traitors are the ones who are calling the shots and covering it up. Keep the war machine running for their agendas, tune in to CNN and believe what your told to believe. God only knows a third of you are actually capable of critical thinking and the rest of you will roll over on your backs when the master tells you to do so.

Luckily for me I will not be an indentured servant to the government for much longer. It just took a decade to wake up.

Suggested reading for some of you.

American History
The Bill of Rights / The United States Constitution

Perhaps then you some of you can form a rational conclusion.

What about the fact he broke the LAW! Whenever you get a security clearance, you sign a non disclosure agreement which states that you will not share the information that you have access to. Period. He broke the law by STEALING that information off a classified computer and putting it onto an unclass computer. It's that simple. Plus, that information most people generally knew already and some of it actually highlights the good we (US) are doing.

Yes Iraq was mismanaged and ultimately so was Afghanistan. No one denies that but for him to leak the material he did was wrong I don't care who you are. He smuggled information out. First off all, his leadership failed by letting him listen to a burnt CD on a classified computer. No go in my book.

He is a traitor. How was he defending the Constitution - tell me that.

Maybe you need to actually read the Constitution yourself...and the Bill of Rights and study some American history. If an officer or senior NCO gave me an unlawful order you bet your ass I will call them on it and report it. However the military isn't a democracy. You follow orders given from above (lawful orders).

Go ahead and support this kid but I won't. If the dumbass wouldn't have been 'tooting his own horn' he never would've got caught anyway.

WHat do you say of the sailor who got busted trying to sell documents? Why people think they'll make money of selling classified stuff I'll never figure out. They never get that much money and end up in prison anyway...

candycane3482
12-14-2010, 09:54 PM
PFC Manning is the poster-child for the "repeal DADT" crowd. A disgruntled gay, he felt it necessary to lash out at the Army and America since he did not fit in. Is this who we want serving?

Thank you, PFC Manning, for proving our point about allowing gays to openly serve.

Omg STOP using him as an argument not to repeal DADT. Him possibly being a homosexual has NOTHING to do with what he did. Nothing. Your argument is baseless.

garhkal
12-15-2010, 08:44 AM
What about the fact he broke the LAW! Whenever you get a security clearance, you sign a non disclosure agreement which states that you will not share the information that you have access to. Period. He broke the law by STEALING that information off a classified computer and putting it onto an unclass computer. It's that simple. Plus, that information most people generally knew already and some of it actually highlights the good we (US) are doing. .

Precicely. HECK by his leaking info in the manner he did, he became one of those enemies against the constitution..

Kurth70
12-16-2010, 03:13 PM
He is a traitor. Plain and simple. He had a clearance. He was trusted with classified info regardless of his rank. WE, the USA, trusted him with information. He gave that information to someone he shouldn't have. Regardless of whether it was the secret of Coke or Col. Sanders recipe, (which it was much more serious than those), he is a sellout. He is a coward. There are things that happen in this world, during wartime etc. that not need be shared. Not to conceal the actions but to protect the innocent. Not all actions that are classified or secret were illegal. That is a bad perception many have.

TJMAC77SP
12-16-2010, 04:02 PM
I think the media has gotten ‘Cablegate’ so blown up in order to actually make something of it that it seems the message is being lost in the medium. WikiLeaks first leaks an edited version of an AH-64 fire support mission in which reporters were killed. I say edited because they used visual enhancements to show you what they wanted you to see where the truth lay somewhere else. Then a couple of months ago WikiLeaks promised a bombshell about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan with its first big ‘dump’ of stolen classified messages and cables. All we got was that the number of civilians killed as a direct and indirect result of hostilities was higher than reported in the media. We didn’t see any huge revelation of wrongdoing on the part of the US. No directive from military leadership mandating that the number of civilians killed be downplayed. Nothing about intelligence being subverted to support going to war (a big claim that lives to this day). In plain and simple language, there was no smoking gun.

Now we have another promised ‘revelation’ by the narcissistic Assange (and make no mistake everything he does is all about him, not some lofty principles). What we got was the traffic of diplomatic staff doing what they get paid to do, report in the most candid way possible as to what is going on in the world to their boss….the President. Without this candor, the President would have no real idea what was going on anywhere. How could he possibly deal with people outside of the US without this information? I simply cannot believe that anyone doesn’t see that and worse they anyone would not see and acknowledge the incredible harm done to the ability of the US Foreign Service to do their job. I for one don’t envy them. Don’t believe for a second all the platitudes being thrown around by our government and others who were subjects of those cables. There will be hard feelings for years to come.

For those that continue to support this tool and his lackeys as some kind of humanitarian crusader. Consider for a moment. In Assange’s own words (paraphrased) he has hundreds if not thousands of sources all over the world who provide him with information which would embarrass governments. Where is this information? Why has he released only information which he claims to show malevolent deeds by the US government (but in reality merely embarrasses it)? He claims to want global transparence but evidently he will accomplish this one country at a time and starting with the US. A fairly transparent agenda in my opinion.

There are no heroes in this matter, only the self-absorbed and the sad.

Kirtland_Red_Storm
12-17-2010, 06:40 AM
"only the self-absorbed and the sad."

That is being arrogant!:rolleyes:

TJMAC77SP
12-17-2010, 12:38 PM
"only the self-absorbed and the sad."

That is being arrogant!:rolleyes:

So, do you believe that either Manning or Assange are heros?

I am not sure why my opinion of the players in this idiocy that is the Wikileaks data dump would seem to be arrogant to you although I have and idea.

Kirtland_Red_Storm
12-17-2010, 03:29 PM
Just for clarification sources familiar with the ongoing investigation, Manning was exposed after telling notorious online hacker, Adrian Lamo, he was the one who released the video. Lamo shared this knowledge with authorities, later saying Manning also took credit for for releasing hundreds of thousands of sensitive diplomatic cables.

- Pfc. Manning was charged on July 5 with four specifications under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for violating Army Regulation 25-2 (Information Assurance Policy), and eight specifications under Article 134 for violating federal statutes related to the receipt of classified information (18 U.S.C. 793) and wrongful access of a government computer (18 U.S.C. 1030).

-He could face more charges before the investigation is over. Sources say the investigation could wrap in the next few weeks. A trial, however, could be more than a year away. Army officials say Manning's mental health evaluation is not set to be complete until around February of 2011. Only then can a trial date be set.

- Pfc. Manning is gay and there is some speculation the military's policy banning openly serving gays served as his motivation for leaking classified documents. Prior to his arrest he posted Facebook messages saying "military intelligence" is an oxymoron. He also posted that he was "beyond frustrated."

- What possible penalties does Manning face if he is found guilty? As the charges currently stand the maximum punishment Pfc. Manning could face would be 52 years confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge. The investigation remains open and the charges represent an accusation only; Pfc. Manning is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

- Now recently there have been calls for Manning to face the penalty of execution and I believe that would strongly depend on any follow-on charges that the investigation finds expecially if it ties it to any major breach where lives were lost.

=====================================

From the JAWA Report 15 Dec 10

(Berkeley, California) Stop the presses! Late last night, the Berkeley City Council backed off its effort to give PFC Bradley Manning a medal.

In a 8-0 vote with one abstention, the council tabled the resolution (http://tinyurl.com/3a4emt9) brought by the city's Peace and Justice Commission, mostly because council members said they were reluctant to proclaim a hero someone who has neither admitted to nor been convicted of leaking the information.One councilman wondered whether giving Manning an award would help convict him. Frankly, I contend what the city of Berkeley does really does not matter (http://interested-participant.blogspot.com/) in the case.

Presumably, the prosecution of Bradley Manning will be based upon his alleged illegal actions.

CORNELIUSSEON
12-17-2010, 03:38 PM
To whom it may concern, I for one can say PFC Manning is indeed an individual of good moral character. He did what others should have but did not have the courage to do. Are you all such war mongers that you have forgotten what your oath stands for? Or do you wish or reject the idea of having domestic enemies?

I want to to refresh your memories.

"I, _____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States, the governor of the state of _______ (for National Guard enlistees) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Some of you might say that he was to follow the orders of the officers appointed over him. That is only true to some degree. If crimes were committed and then a "COVER UP" followed by an erroneous investigation. Which sadly happens on a weekly basis. Then the order is unlawful. General Military Authority overrides much my friends.

The real crime that is committed are the individuals that try to cover things up. To save their own careers. You call it what you want. I can tell you honestly that the war in Iraq is the biggest load of shit, followed by a side order of extra shitty also known as Afghanistan.

What amuses me ever more is how many of you stand behind our government and our senior officers. What? You think they carry a badge of justice on their chests and walk around with halos over their heads? I think not, guess what.... they don't give two shits about you, me and the man next to you. But they will send you to any country that they have a particular problem or there preconceived agenda is for that country. Dick Cheney was quoted as to say "We were going to invade Iraq anyway." WoW just WoW.

So here we sit with two conflicts, a waining economy, the largest national debt our country has ever seen, 800 billion dollar defense budget, and our own people are suffering on a daily basis. But you will call this young PFC a traitor. The traitors are the ones who are calling the shots and covering it up. Keep the war machine running for their agendas, tune in to CNN and believe what your told to believe. God only knows a third of you are actually capable of critical thinking and the rest of you will roll over on your backs when the master tells you to do so.

Luckily for me I will not be an indentured servant to the government for much longer. It just took a decade to wake up.

Suggested reading for some of you.

American History
The Bill of Rights / The United States Constitution

Perhaps then you some of you can form a rational conclusion.

If nothing else, PFC Manning has proven that he is incapable of living up to the oath of office he took back as the Induction Station. If he didn't like what he saw around him, he should have asked for a change of assignment away from the material he was working on, find some place to mark time until his E.T.S., and quietly left the service.

Kirtland_Red_Storm
12-18-2010, 07:02 PM
U.S. denies mistreating Pfc. Bradley Manning


By Matthew Barakat and Pauline Jelinek - The Associated Press
Posted : Saturday Dec 18, 2010 8:57:56 EST

WASHINGTON — The Defense Department on Friday denied reports that the Army private suspected of passing classified information to WikiLeaks is being mistreated at a Marine prison near Washington.
Jeff Paterson, director of the California-based Courage to Resist project, said visitors report that Pfc. Bradley Manning generally spends at least 23 hours a day alone in a cell no larger than about 64 square feet.
“We believe it’s a form of punishment prior to conviction,” Paterson said of the terms of Manning’s confinement while awaiting possible court-martial.
Paterson has not visited Manning personally but others who have described conditions in the brig.
Defense Department spokesman Col. Dave Lapan told reporters that Manning has the same privileges as all other prisoners held in what the military calls “maximum custody.”
He said Manning is in a standard single-person cell and gets exercise, recreation, access to newspapers* and visitors.
Lapan called reports of his mistreatment “blatantly false.”


*except those that carry any WikiLeaks stories or leaked classified data. Remember we must control access!

CORNELIUSSEON
12-18-2010, 08:33 PM
U.S. denies mistreating Pfc. Bradley Manning


By Matthew Barakat and Pauline Jelinek - The Associated Press
Posted : Saturday Dec 18, 2010 8:57:56 EST

WASHINGTON — The Defense Department on Friday denied reports that the Army private suspected of passing classified information to WikiLeaks is being mistreated at a Marine prison near Washington.
Jeff Paterson, director of the California-based Courage to Resist project, said visitors report that Pfc. Bradley Manning generally spends at least 23 hours a day alone in a cell no larger than about 64 square feet.
“We believe it’s a form of punishment prior to conviction,” Paterson said of the terms of Manning’s confinement while awaiting possible court-martial.
Paterson has not visited Manning personally but others who have described conditions in the brig.
Defense Department spokesman Col. Dave Lapan told reporters that Manning has the same privileges as all other prisoners held in what the military calls “maximum custody.”
He said Manning is in a standard single-person cell and gets exercise, recreation, access to newspapers* and visitors.
Lapan called reports of his mistreatment “blatantly false.”


*except those that carry any WikiLeaks stories or leaked classified data. Remember we must control access!

Considering that, when I took Basic Training, each of the Bunk Mates had to share a Barracks Space consisting of 1600 Square Inches ["40 inches all around..."], or 13 1/3 Square Feet (not counting the space for the Wall Locker at the head of the Bunks, and the Foot Lockers at the foot of the bunks), in a World War Two era Barracks Building that had two Platoon Bays, one above the other, that held altogether 48 Basic Trainees, we would have considered 64 Square Feet as being in the lap of luxury. Since military confinement, both Pre- and Post-Conviction is supposed to approximate the conditions found in Basic Training, I would say that PFC Manning is doing very well indeed. As to the 23 Hours of confinement per day, that is absolutely standard, and has been for a very long time. The long and the short of it is that needs to stop whining since he should have thought things through before he illegally downloaded and gave away those leaks.

CORNELIUSSEON
12-18-2010, 08:33 PM
U.S. denies mistreating Pfc. Bradley Manning


By Matthew Barakat and Pauline Jelinek - The Associated Press
Posted : Saturday Dec 18, 2010 8:57:56 EST

WASHINGTON — The Defense Department on Friday denied reports that the Army private suspected of passing classified information to WikiLeaks is being mistreated at a Marine prison near Washington.
Jeff Paterson, director of the California-based Courage to Resist project, said visitors report that Pfc. Bradley Manning generally spends at least 23 hours a day alone in a cell no larger than about 64 square feet.
“We believe it’s a form of punishment prior to conviction,” Paterson said of the terms of Manning’s confinement while awaiting possible court-martial.
Paterson has not visited Manning personally but others who have described conditions in the brig.
Defense Department spokesman Col. Dave Lapan told reporters that Manning has the same privileges as all other prisoners held in what the military calls “maximum custody.”
He said Manning is in a standard single-person cell and gets exercise, recreation, access to newspapers* and visitors.
Lapan called reports of his mistreatment “blatantly false.”


*except those that carry any WikiLeaks stories or leaked classified data. Remember we must control access!

Considering that, when I took Basic Training, each of the Bunk Mates had to share a Barracks Space consisting of 1600 Square Inches ["40 inches all around..."], or 13 1/3 Square Feet (not counting the space for the Wall Locker at the head of the Bunks, and the Foot Lockers at the foot of the bunks), in a World War Two era Barracks Building that had two Platoon Bays, one above the other, that held altogether 48 Basic Trainees, we would have considered 64 Square Feet as being in the lap of luxury. Since military confinement, both Pre- and Post-Conviction is supposed to approximate the conditions found in Basic Training, I would say that PFC Manning is doing very well indeed. As to the 23 Hours of confinement per day, that is absolutely standard, and has been for a very long time. The long and the short of it is that he needs to stop whining since he should have thought things through before he illegally downloaded and gave away those leaks.

smarg
12-18-2010, 08:34 PM
Manning is a bitter homosexual.

God help us all.

Kirtland_Red_Storm
12-19-2010, 02:03 AM
Considering that, when I took Basic Training, each of the Bunk Mates had to share a Barracks Space consisting of 1600 Square Inches ["40 inches all around..."], or 13 1/3 Square Feet (not counting the space for the Wall Locker at the head of the Bunks, and the Foot Lockers at the foot of the bunks), in a World War Two era Barracks Building that had two Platoon Bays, one above the other, that held altogether 48 Basic Trainees, we would have considered 64 Square Feet as being in the lap of luxury. Since military confinement, both Pre- and Post-Conviction is supposed to approximate the conditions found in Basic Training, I would say that PFC Manning is doing very well indeed. As to the 23 Hours of confinement per day, that is absolutely standard, and has been for a very long time. The long and the short of it is that he needs to stop whining since he should have thought things through before he illegally downloaded and gave away those leaks.

You know he had a plan, he had contacted the folks at WikiLeaks, and they provided counsel before he was taken into custody. I'm sure he has an account in Luxembourg with appropriate compensation.

buzz211
12-19-2010, 11:46 PM
Which Marine Brig is he confined to - the one at Quantico? Or at Camp Lejeune? I would say he should consider himself lucky since he was stationed at Ft. Drum prior to his deployment to Iraq, he could have very well found himself in one of the local county lock ups in the area and placed in the General Population. (The locals usually do not segregate soldiers given confinement from the Gen Pop). On two occasions I have had to escort soldiers to a military confinement facility, and believe me they would rather be in a military lock up than a county lock up any day of the week.

PhilJ79
01-01-2011, 05:37 AM
This kind of thing will happen again, and again, and again . . . . unless he's tried by military Tribunal and if found guilty . . . . hung.

CORNELIUSSEON
01-01-2011, 05:15 PM
This kind of thing will happen again, and again, and again . . . . unless he's tried by military Tribunal and if found guilty . . . . hung.

Unfortunately, the only crime that we use Capital Punishment for these days is Murder - in some States. In other cases where the Capital Punishment is still on the books, it normally gets commuted to "Life Without Parole".

imported_WILDJOKER5
01-01-2011, 05:19 PM
Unfortunately, the only crime that we use Capital Punishment for these days is Murder - in some States. In other cases where the Capital Punishment is still on the books, it normally gets commuted to "Life Without Parole".

This is not a state matter. Capital Punishment is not the best deterrent, but I wouldn't mind getting rid of this traitor instead of feeding, clothing, and giving him free cable for the rest of his life.

CORNELIUSSEON
01-01-2011, 05:28 PM
This is not a state matter. Capital Punishment is not the best deterrent, but I wouldn't mind getting rid of this traitor instead of feeding, clothing, and giving him free cable for the rest of his life.

Except in the few cases where the Federal Government has established an actual punishment for a Federal Crime, the Federal Government normally applies the punishment prescribed for the same Crime on the State level of the State where the crime took place.

smarg
01-01-2011, 09:09 PM
Manning is a bitter homosexual that spilled due to his lifestyle.

Get used to it.

garhkal
01-02-2011, 01:25 AM
Except in the few cases where the Federal Government has established an actual punishment for a Federal Crime, the Federal Government normally applies the punishment prescribed for the same Crime on the State level of the State where the crime took place.

But there is no state level punishment or law for treason.

CORNELIUSSEON
01-02-2011, 02:03 AM
But there is no state level punishment or law for treason.

Exactly, which is why Treason is a pure Federal crime with Federal punishment. The last time we punished anyone for Treason was the Rosenbergs, who got Capital Punishment for what the Government could prove. In the case of Manning, he is such a low level Felon that he will probably get Dismissal plus three years.

garhkal
01-03-2011, 10:04 AM
Low level with the shitstorm this conjured up?? Doubt it will be anything less than 20 min..

imported_WILDJOKER5
01-03-2011, 10:17 AM
Exactly, which is why Treason is a pure Federal crime with Federal punishment. The last time we punished anyone for Treason was the Rosenbergs, who got Capital Punishment for what the Government could prove. In the case of Manning, he is such a low level Felon that he will probably get Dismissal plus three years.

How can you ever say treason is low level? Doesn't matter what rank he was when he committed the crime, it is still treason.

CORNELIUSSEON
01-03-2011, 11:40 AM
How can you ever say treason is low level? Doesn't matter what rank he was when he committed the crime, it is still treason.

I didn't say that the Treason was Low Level. I said that PFC Manning is Low Level because he is a PFC.

imported_WILDJOKER5
01-03-2011, 11:47 AM
I didn't say that the Treason was Low Level. I said that PFC Manning is Low Level because he is a PFC.
Then you see my second sentence that said "Doesn't matter what rank he was when he committed the crime, it is still treason."

2E_Tech
01-03-2011, 11:54 AM
Well, of course Manning is going to be a hero to some people. There are people out there who think that "SECRET" is a euphamism for "Illegal and Embarassing".

As hard as it is to believe, there are people who think that ANY information pertaining to ANYTHING should be available to everyone. I doubt they'd feel the same way if their SSN was plastered all over the net. In the meantime, though, they like Manning.

CORNELIUSSEON
01-03-2011, 01:10 PM
Then you see my second sentence that said "Doesn't matter what rank he was when he committed the crime, it is still treason."

OK, but the Military has always taken the Rank of a perpetrator into account both during trial, and at Sentencing: The higher the rank, the stronger the Sentence. Why? because the higher up you are, the better behaved you are supposed to be.

imported_WILDJOKER5
01-03-2011, 01:21 PM
OK, but the Military has always taken the Rank of a perpetrator into account both during trial, and at Sentencing: The higher the rank, the stronger the Sentence. Why? because the higher up you are, the better behaved you are supposed to be.

Yeah, tell that to all the officers that get DUIs.

garhkal
01-04-2011, 01:24 AM
OK, but the Military has always taken the Rank of a perpetrator into account both during trial, and at Sentencing: The higher the rank, the stronger the Sentence. Why? because the higher up you are, the better behaved you are supposed to be.

NOT!.. Ever see a chief and a E4 go to court martial for the same offense? Or see all the incidences in the paper about this or that officer getting busted for this? E6 and below will be hammered, E7 and above or Os will be allowed to retire.

CORNELIUSSEON
01-04-2011, 04:16 PM
NOT!.. Ever see a chief and a E4 go to court martial for the same offense? Or see all the incidences in the paper about this or that officer getting busted for this? E6 and below will be hammered, E7 and above or Os will be allowed to retire.

Obviously, you are “E-6 and Below”, and view sentences from that point of view.

The truth is that E-7 and above – to stick with your example – have been in longer, and know the system better than their younger subordinates. Therefore, they know that – when their privates get caught in a wringer, they – most likely – will have the option of Retirement rather than Prosecution. For certain violations, especially when a Nolo Contendere plea is submitted by the Defense, Retirement as a form of Non Judicial Punishment can certainly be cheaper for all concerned than going through a whole trial and Incarceration.

imported_WILDJOKER5
01-04-2011, 04:28 PM
Obviously, you are “E-6 and Below”, and view sentences from that point of view.

The truth is that E-7 and above – to stick with your example – have been in longer, and know the system better than their younger subordinates. Therefore, they know that – when their privates get caught in a wringer, they – most likely – will have the option of Retirement rather than Prosecution. For certain violations, especially when a Nolo Contendere plea is submitted by the Defense, Retirement as a form of Non Judicial Punishment can certainly be cheaper for all concerned than going through a whole trial and Incarceration.

Lets put treason with a crime it belongs next to. Murder.

You have an E-2 murder his wife on base, they will get the same punishment as an E-7 thru 0-10. Treason is not something to just shake a stick at and it doesn't matter what rank a traitor is, they would get the same punishment.

TJMAC77SP
01-04-2011, 06:32 PM
.............. especially when a Nolo Contendere plea is submitted ..........

There is no plea of Nolo Contendere available in the UCMJ (or MCM).

CORNELIUSSEON
01-04-2011, 07:26 PM
Lets put treason with a crime it belongs next to. Murder.

You have an E-2 murder his wife on base, they will get the same punishment as an E-7 thru 0-10. Treason is not something to just shake a stick at and it doesn't matter what rank a traitor is, they would get the same punishment.

Actually, some correction is necessary. If you search the UCMJ, you will NOT find such a charge as "Treason". You will find several charges that must be proven that YOU might consider as definitive of "Treason", but the UCMJ leaves that term ambiguous.

I direct you to look up Article 106a: Espionage, and Article 108: Military property of the United States—sale, loss, damage, destruction, or wrongful disposition.

CORNELIUSSEON
01-04-2011, 07:53 PM
There is no plea of Nolo Contendere available in the UCMJ (or MCM).

Main Entry: nolo con·ten·de·re
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural nolo contenderes

Etymology: Latin, "I do not wish to contend"

: a plea by the defendant in a criminal prosecution that without admitting guilt subjects him to a judgment of conviction as in the case of a plea of guilty but does not preclude him from denying the truth of the charges in a collateral proceeding.

Variable Wind
01-04-2011, 08:02 PM
Main Entry: nolo con·ten·de·re
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural nolo contenderes

Etymology: Latin, "I do not wish to contend"

: a plea by the defendant in a criminal prosecution that without admitting guilt subjects him to a judgment of conviction as in the case of a plea of guilty but does not preclude him from denying the truth of the charges in a collateral proceeding.

Youre digging another hole again. He said a No Contest plead is not available in the UCMJ or MCM. Answering him with a definition that he is obviously cognisant of does not further the arguement/debate/discussion whatsoever.

I think TJ was a former LEO of some kind in his service. Given that and your only education comes from SEIUniversity and Google State, Ill give the spread in his favor of who is the more accurate.

CORNELIUSSEON
01-04-2011, 08:11 PM
Youre digging another hole again. He said a No Contest plead is not available in the UCMJ or MCM. Answering him with a definition that he is obviously cognisant of does not further the arguement/debate/discussion whatsoever.

I think TJ was a former LEO of some kind in his service. Given that and your only education comes from SEIUniversity and Google State, Ill give the spread in his favor of who is the more accurate.

The UCMJ/MCM doesn't restrict pleas to "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". Nolo Contendere is universally recognized. The Judge can't stop you from pleading "No Contest". All he can do is dutifully write down your plea as given and proceed.

Variable Wind
01-04-2011, 08:19 PM
The UCMJ/MCM doesn't restrict pleas to "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". Nolo Contendere is universally recognized. The Judge can't stop you from pleading "No Contest". All he can do is dutifully write down your plea as given and proceed.

That at least does more than define the word. Youre learning.

TJMAC77SP
01-04-2011, 08:26 PM
Main Entry: nolo con·ten·de·re
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural nolo contenderes

Etymology: Latin, "I do not wish to contend"

: a plea by the defendant in a criminal prosecution that without admitting guilt subjects him to a judgment of conviction as in the case of a plea of guilty but does not preclude him from denying the truth of the charges in a collateral proceeding.

God, sometimes this is just too easy.

I didn't say there was no such thing as a Nolo Contendere anywhere, it just doesn't exist in the military judicial system (please review Rule 910 of the MCM).

TJMAC77SP
01-04-2011, 08:30 PM
The UCMJ/MCM doesn't restrict pleas to "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". Nolo Contendere is universally recognized. The Judge can't stop you from pleading "No Contest". All he can do is dutifully write down your plea as given and proceed.

Can you see over the top of that hole?

From Rule 910:

(1) In general. An accused may plead as follows: guilty; not guilty to an offense as charged, but guilty of a named lesser included offense; guilty with exceptions, with or without substitutions, not guilty of the exceptions, but guilty of the substitutions, if any; or, not guilty. A plea of guilty may not be received as to an offense for which the death penalty may be adjudged by the court-martial.
…….

(b) Refusal to plead; irregular plea. If an accused fails or refuses to plead, or makes an irregular plea, the military judge shall enter a plea of not guilty for the accused.

You will note that there is not mention of Nolo Contendere or No Contest.....................

And.........the UCMJ/MCM does restrict a defendent to Guilty and Not Guilty (with specifications)

TJMAC77SP
01-04-2011, 08:32 PM
That at least does more than define the word. Youre learning.

No........he isn't.........see below.

CORNELIUSSEON
01-04-2011, 08:55 PM
That at least does more than define the word. You're learning.

I defined the word simply because the way he said what he said lent the opinion that he didn't have a clue as to what Nolo Contendere meant, and didn't bother to check his dictionary before he said as much. If he had, he might have saved himself a posting.

CORNELIUSSEON
01-04-2011, 09:02 PM
Can you see over the top of that hole?

From Rule 910:

(1) In general. An accused may plead as follows: guilty; not guilty to an offense as charged, but guilty of a named lesser included offense; guilty with exceptions, with or without substitutions, not guilty of the exceptions, but guilty of the substitutions, if any; or, not guilty. A plea of guilty may not be received as to an offense for which the death penalty may be adjudged by the court-martial.
…….

(b) Refusal to plead; irregular plea. If an accused fails or refuses to plead, or makes an irregular plea, the military judge shall enter a plea of not guilty for the accused.

You will note that there is not mention of Nolo Contendere or No Contest.....................

And.........the UCMJ/MCM does restrict a defendent to Guilty and Not Guilty (with specifications)

I think you need to read this again, and at a slower speed: "a plea by the defendant in a criminal prosecution that without admitting guilt subjects him to a judgment of conviction as in the case of a plea of guilty but does not preclude him from denying the truth of the charges in a collateral proceeding."

Variable Wind
01-04-2011, 09:02 PM
I defined the word simply because the way he said what he said lent the opinion that he didn't have a clue as to what Nolo Contendere meant, and didn't bother to check his dictionary before he said as much. If he had, he might have saved himself a posting.

And yet it turns out, you are the one who didnt know what they were talking about.

Take your own advice.

CORNELIUSSEON
01-04-2011, 09:17 PM
And yet it turns out, you are the one who didnt know what they were talking about.

Take your own advice.

I direct you to Posting #68, this subject.

Variable Wind
01-05-2011, 03:18 AM
I direct you to Posting #68, this subject.

Yeah, its as backwards as your signature.

Kirtland_Red_Storm
01-05-2011, 03:37 AM
Damn, the rumor must not be true! I had heard that Manning took a 45 caliber enema while in the US Marine Corps Disciplinary Barracks head.

I guess it must have been another head.

TJMAC77SP
01-05-2011, 11:01 AM
I think you need to read this again, and at a slower speed: "a plea by the defendant in a criminal prosecution that without admitting guilt subjects him to a judgment of conviction as in the case of a plea of guilty but does not preclude him from denying the truth of the charges in a collateral proceeding."

Now maybe I am having some reading comprehension problems...............

Where in Rule 910 (or in the entire MCM for that matter) did that quote come from?

TJMAC77SP
01-06-2011, 01:59 PM
I guess my reading comprehension wasn't that bad after all.............

((Now, if only we could just fill in the hole))

imported_WILDJOKER5
01-06-2011, 02:13 PM
"Liberals feel unworthy of their possessions.
Conservatives feel they deserve everything they've stolen."

OMG, where does someone get off on saying something so false? Where does a conservative "steal" what they have? Last time I checked, the definition of stealing is taking something that is not yours, like liberals taking the money people worked hard for and giving it to people that do nothing. Liberals can give all they want to the government, just you don't force someone else to give what they have.

CORNELIUSSEON
01-14-2011, 05:09 PM
I ran across this yesterday I am surprised that no one has posted about it yet.
Off the news wires:

Amid calls from some politicians to press treason charges -- which could carry the death penalty -- against whoever leaked secret cables to WikiLeaks, the Berkeley, Calif., entertaining a resolution to declare that an Army private accused of leaking some classified information to the website is an American hero.
City Peace and Justice Commissioner Bob Meola, who authored the resolution, told the San Francisco Chronicle that Pfc. Bradley Manning, 22, is a patriot who deserves a medal.
"If he did what he's accused of doing, he's a patriot and should get a medal," Meola told the newspaper. "I think the war criminals should be the ones prosecuted, not the whistle-blowers."
Manning -- accused of leaking a video that depicted an Army helicopter attack that left 11 people dead in Baghdad and widely suspected of leaking hundreds of thousands of secret cables to WikiLeaks -- is currently being held in a Virginia military brig.
And that's where he belongs, say members of a national veterans group, who call the Berkeley resolution "appalling."
Ryan Gallucci, a spokesman for AMVETS, which represents roughly 180,000 U.S. veterans, said the City Council "would be wise" to vote down the resolution in support of Manning. A city commission has already approved the measure, and the Berkeley City Council will vote on it on Tuesday.
"AMVETS believes it would be appalling to commend someone like Bradley Manning, who has betrayed his country and disgraced the uniform," Gallucci wrote in a statement to FoxNews.com. "Manning not only compromised American interests across the globe, but he has blood on his hands for our Afghan allies sought out by the Taliban from the first leak."
Gallucci said Berkeley lawmakers should be "ashamed" that the proposal ever surfaced.
Manning, who has not commented publicly on his case, faces up to 52 years in prison if convicted of leaking the video. Though widely suspected, he has not been charged in connection with the release of hundreds of thousands of classified military documents to WikiLeaks, many of which have been released in the last couple of weeks.
His civilian attorney, David Coombs, did not return a call seeking comment. Army officials also did not immediately comment when reached by FoxNews.com.
But Jeff Paterson, an organizer for the Bradley Manning Support Network, said he's "hopeful" the Berkeley resolution will pass.
"I believe he's a hero," Paterson said. "There's an international witch hunt against WikiLeaks and if Bradley Manning is the source of the material, he needs all of our support."
Paterson, who will attend Tuesday's vote along with Meola, says he considers the resolution's chances of passing to be "50-50."
James Carafano, national security expert at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Washington, said he considered the resolution to be jumping the gun.
"First of all, someone is innocent until proven guilty," Carafano said. "And the investigation is not done. They're kind of pre-judging the judicial system -- at least wait and see what evidence and charges are presented. They have no evidence to base this judgment on."
If Manning is ultimately charged and proven guilty of leaking the sensitive documents, Carafano said, the resolution could be construed as encouraging millions of U.S. military officials with access to sensitive information to disseminate that material.
"I'm a great lover of democracy and I'm a great lover of federalism," he said. "But if people of that city want to earn the disdain of other Americans, that's their right. If these people want to vote against the crowd, have at it.
"The most kind and generous thing you could say is that it's completely irresponsible."

All I can say is Wow are these people for real?

Well, gang, read it and weep. Here is PFC Manning’s Charge Sheet: http://www.michaelyon-online.com/images/pdf/charge-sheet-pvt-bradley-manning.pdf

*And for any who have trouble counting, he is charged with:
1. Four specifications of Article 92 – Failure to Obey Order or Regulation; and
2. Eight specifications of Article 134 – General Article.

*The Charge Sheet has been Redacted, but it is informative that PFC Manning joined on October 2, 2007 on a Four Year Enlistment, and was Five months away from his ETS Date [which has come and gone] when he was charged.

*PFC Manning is/was a member of HHC, STB, 2nd BCT, 10th Mountain Division (LI), and was at COS Hammer in Iraq.

*It is obvious to me that the reason for his Pre-Trial Confinement was his pending ETS Date. The Army didn’t want him to skip the Jurisdiction once he ETSed.

buzz211
01-16-2011, 01:03 PM
I heard the other day that Assange just inked a book deal. I do not know if this is true or not but I wonder if he will remember his little friend sitting in the brig. "Well Brad thanks for playing"

TJMAC77SP
01-17-2011, 07:28 PM
Well, gang, read it and weep. Here is PFC Manning’s Charge Sheet: http://www.michaelyon-online.com/images/pdf/charge-sheet-pvt-bradley-manning.pdf


So.....do you think he will plead No Contest or Nolo contendere?

And………..you never told me where in Rule 910 (or the MCM) this quote came from…………….


I think you need to read this again, and at a slower speed: "a plea by the defendant in a criminal prosecution that without admitting guilt subjects him to a judgment of conviction as in the case of a plea of guilty but does not preclude him from denying the truth of the charges in a collateral proceeding."

CORNELIUSSEON
01-17-2011, 07:50 PM
Obviously, you are fixated on this single point of law and have nothing else to do with your time but to contend it interminably. I’m not so blessed, and so I will answer the second question with the legal phrase of “Asked and Answered”, which means that you should go back and read my posts to find out where I get the quotation from – I never said it was from the MCM.

As for the first question, it is obvious that he has pled not Guilty, and that pleading has been accepted; otherwise he wouldn’t still be facing trial.

And, with that – I rest my case.

TJMAC77SP
01-17-2011, 08:05 PM
Obviously, you are fixated on this single point of law and have nothing else to do with your time but to contend it interminably.

You are absolutely correct in that I am fixated on exposing people who post unsupportable drivel and refuse to accept any semblance of accountability for their words (that won’t be changing)


I’m not so blessed, and so I will answer the second question with the legal phrase of “Asked and Answered”, which means that you should go back and read my posts to find out where I get the quotation from – I never said it was from the MCM.

No, you never said where it was from at all. Of course the discussion was about military justice and my challenge of your claim of Nolo contendere pleas in military justice so there is a relevance issue there.


As for the first question, it is obvious that he has pled not Guilty, and that pleading has been accepted; otherwise he wouldn’t still be facing trial.

Why is it obvious that he has plead Guilty? The presence of a charge sheet only means that the trial consel has formalized charges against him.


And, with that – I rest my case.

Well, then I will ask the forum for a directed verdict.

Let’s have a recap of this issue…………….(looks like I had this prepared doesn’t it? Could it be that your lack of a credible answer was anticipated?)

First you talk about a Nolo contendere plea in Military Courts Martial (bold added by me)



Obviously, you are “E-6 and Below”, and view sentences from that point of view.

The truth is that E-7 and above – to stick with your example – have been in longer, and know the system better than their younger subordinates. Therefore, they know that – when their privates get caught in a wringer, they – most likely – will have the option of Retirement rather than Prosecution. For certain violations, especially when a Nolo Contendere plea is submitted by the Defense, Retirement as a form of Non Judicial Punishment can certainly be cheaper for all concerned than going through a whole trial and Incarceration.

I inform you that this plea is not allowed in the US Military judicial system.

There is no plea of Nolo Contendere available in the UCMJ (or MCM).

You (once again) attempt to deflect by providing a totally unnecessary definition of the term Nolo Contendere…..avoiding my point altogether.


Main Entry: nolo con•ten•de•re
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural nolo contenderes

Etymology: Latin, "I do not wish to contend"

: a plea by the defendant in a criminal prosecution that without admitting guilt subjects him to a judgment of conviction as in the case of a plea of guilty but does not preclude him from denying the truth of the charges in a collateral proceeding.


Then you dig a little deeper and state that a defendant can plea pretty any way he/she wishes.


The UCMJ/MCM doesn't restrict pleas to "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". Nolo Contendere is universally recognized. The Judge can't stop you from pleading "No Contest". All he can do is dutifully write down your plea as given and proceed.

I (again) point out another of your errors.


God, sometimes this is just too easy.

I didn't say there was no such thing as a Nolo Contendere anywhere, it just doesn't exist in the military judicial system (please review Rule 910 of the MCM).

I even saved you a google search and provided the text from the appropriate MCM rule…..


Can you see over the top of that hole?

From Rule 910:

(1) In general. An accused may plead as follows: guilty; not guilty to an offense as charged, but guilty of a named lesser included offense; guilty with exceptions, with or without substitutions, not guilty of the exceptions, but guilty of the substitutions, if any; or, not guilty. A plea of guilty may not be received as to an offense for which the death penalty may be adjudged by the court-martial.
…….

(b) Refusal to plead; irregular plea. If an accused fails or refuses to plead, or makes an irregular plea, the military judge shall enter a plea of not guilty for the accused.

You will note that there is not mention of Nolo Contendere or No Contest.....................

And.........the UCMJ/MCM does restrict a defendent to Guilty and Not Guilty (with specifications)


You (again) attempt to explain that somehow that I must not have known the definition of Nolo Contendere and this has led to confusion. It isn’t of course that you were (again) wrong and are (again) failing to admit same.


I defined the word simply because the way he said what he said lent the opinion that he didn't have a clue as to what Nolo Contendere meant, and didn't bother to check his dictionary before he said as much. If he had, he might have saved himself a posting.

Here you provide a quote which I have no idea where it came from and asked you to provide the source. Of course since we were discussing the military judicial system and the UCMJ and MCM specifically the assumption is that it is from there……………………..otherwise it would be irrelevant.


I think you need to read this again, and at a slower speed: "a plea by the defendant in a criminal prosecution that without admitting guilt subjects him to a judgment of conviction as in the case of a plea of guilty but does not preclude him from denying the truth of the charges in a collateral proceeding."


Now maybe I am having some reading comprehension problems...............

Where in Rule 910 (or in the entire MCM for that matter) did that quote come from?

Still no answer…………………………

Variable Wind
01-17-2011, 08:15 PM
Once again Corney proves to be lacking in actual substance. He argues with made up "facts" and fabricated "truths".

CORNELIUSSEON
01-17-2011, 08:18 PM
The reason WHY I am sure he pled Not Guilty is - as I said - he still faces trial. If he had pled Guilty, or No Contest, either way - he would now be facing Sentencing and Appeal, NOT trial.

That is the limit of what I have to say.

TJMAC77SP
01-18-2011, 12:54 AM
The reason WHY I am sure he pled Not Guilty is - as I said - he still faces trial. If he had pled Guilty, or No Contest, either way - he would now be facing Sentencing and Appeal, NOT trial.

Unless of course the pleading phase of the Court Martial has not been held, in which case he is still in pre-trial confinement. Since the Army, as of last Tuesday was still establishing a ‘706 board’ to determine his mental competence to stand trial I would say that my assumption as to no plea yet is a safe bet. (BTW…I have already proven that he will not be allowed to plead No Contest. Nice try though).


That is the limit of what I have to say.

Translation……..I have absolutely nothing to counter the points raised by you so I will simple pretend that I have prevailed and leave the field………………………..again, nice try.

buzz211
01-18-2011, 01:27 PM
Correct me if I am wrong - but the investigation is still active correct? Manning still has not had a Article 32 hearing and I am sure that cannot be waived. Also the Feds have gotten into it also. Since they (the Feds) think he leaked the State Department cables to Assange. Could the Feds pull Jurisdiction over the Military and take over the case and prosecute Manning. I think the Feds did prosecute the guys who were selling the Navy Sub information to the Soviets in the 80's. but I am not sure can anyone clarify.

TJMAC77SP
01-18-2011, 02:35 PM
Correct me if I am wrong - but the investigation is still active correct? Manning still has not had a Article 32 hearing and I am sure that cannot be waived. Also the Feds have gotten into it also. Since they (the Feds) think he leaked the State Department cables to Assange. Could the Feds pull Jurisdiction over the Military and take over the case and prosecute Manning. I think the Feds did prosecute the guys who were selling the Navy Sub information to the Soviets in the 80's. but I am not sure can anyone clarify.

You are correct in that the trial has not begun. I don't believe there has been an Article 32 hearing but can't swear to that. I could just state it as fact like others do but I prefer to rely on actual (as opposed to virtual or imaginary) facts.

I believe the case you are referring to was the Walker case. In that case two of the main players were civilians (retired Navy) and the tip first came to the FBI to begin with. I can't say whether the FBI COULD assert juristiction but as of right now, Manning has not been charged with a crime that is prosecuted under (civilian) federal law. I highly doubt you will see anyone prosecute Manning other than the US Army.

Battleshort
01-18-2011, 03:20 PM
Translation……..I have absolutely nothing to counter the points raised by you so I will simple pretend that I have prevailed and leave the field………………………..again, nice try.

I believe that sounds like "SanFranNan" and her "I'm confident that we will retain the majority in the House.".

TJMAC77SP
01-18-2011, 06:39 PM
I believe that sounds like "SanFranNan" and her "I'm confident that we will retain the majority in the House.".

Yeah, now she is back on commercial flights...........tough life.

jschwendler
01-22-2011, 12:20 AM
Don't let some leftist California liberal fool, influence your thinking too much. While it is good to read and listen to, the opinions of others, be strong enough of heart, mind, and character, to reject the truly stupid. PFC Manning allegedly released classified documents. That is against our laws. If convicted, he will in no way be considered a hero. I believe the unidentified informant to the press who leaked the reason for the Tucson shooter's rejection for military service, should be court-martialed as well. There is the Privacy Act, which the DoD is apparently winking at, depending on the persons involved.

jschwendler
01-22-2011, 12:25 AM
PFC Manning hasn't been convicted of anything, yet. If he is convicted of releasing classified documents he will not be a hero. He will be a convict and can join the Walkers and the FBI agents and others who have committed treason against our country and put fellow soldiers (all branches) in harm's way. The quantity and quality of what he may have released are of no consequence. He was given a certain level of trust with certain documents. He may have violated that trust, for which there is punishment under our laws. I also believe that the unidentified informant who released to the press, the reason for the Tucson shooter's rejection for military service, should also be court-martialed.

CORNELIUSSEON
01-22-2011, 04:06 AM
Correct me if I am wrong - but the investigation is still active correct? Manning still has not had a Article 32 hearing and I am sure that cannot be waived. Also the Feds have gotten into it also. Since they (the Feds) think he leaked the State Department cables to Assange. Could the Feds pull Jurisdiction over the Military and take over the case and prosecute Manning. I think the Feds did prosecute the guys who were selling the Navy Sub information to the Soviets in the 80's. but I am not sure can anyone clarify.

The Army has First Dibs on Manning since he was in their jurisdiction when he did what they say he did. As of now, the charges that have been preferred against him are contained on the Charge Sheets at the following link: http://www.michaelyon-online.com/images/pdf/charge-sheet-pvt-bradley-manning.pdf

If you read them carefully, you will see that they reflect what he has been publicly accused of doing by the Army, and not one thing more - that is, no speculation, no politics, no hearsay. All of his charges deal with the duty he was charged to perform, period. That said, more charges can certainly be preferred prior to his Article 32 Hearing, and even more could be preferred as a result of his Article 32 Hearing. but - as for right now - he is only facing the charges on this sheet. Even so, given his Military status, it is likely if any other department preferred charges against him, those charges would be probably be translated into the Military equivalent of those charges, and they would be tacked onto this charge sheet.

TJMAC77SP
01-22-2011, 07:04 PM
The Army has First Dibs on Manning since he was in their jurisdiction when he did what they say he did. As of now, the charges that have been preferred against him are contained on the Charge Sheets at the following link: http://www.michaelyon-online.com/images/pdf/charge-sheet-pvt-bradley-manning.pdf

If you read them carefully, you will see that they reflect what he has been publicly accused of doing by the Army, and not one thing more - that is, no speculation, no politics, no hearsay. All of his charges deal with the duty he was charged to perform, period. That said, more charges can certainly be preferred prior to his Article 32 Hearing, and even more could be preferred as a result of his Article 32 Hearing. but - as for right now - he is only facing the charges on this sheet. Even so, given his Military status, it is likely if any other department preferred charges against him, those charges would be probably be translated into the Military equivalent of those charges, and they would be tacked onto this charge sheet.

So................he HASN'T plead guilty ?????


The reason WHY I am sure he pled Not Guilty is - as I said - he still faces trial. If he had pled Guilty, or No Contest, either way - he would now be facing Sentencing and Appeal, NOT trial.

That is the limit of what I have to say.

buzz211
01-28-2011, 12:50 PM
Found this report today from McClatchy News papers: Army commanders were warned against sending to Iraq an Army private who is suspected of leaking hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents to the secret-spilling site WikiLeaks.

Read the full story at www.mcclatchydc.com.

So I pose this question to you: According to this report the kid had a discipline problem and his unit deployed him anyway. So that tells me two things: One- His chain of command did not push the chapter hard enough or the packet was too weak. Two: He had major case of Tiny Heart syndrome and he was acting out on purpose so he could get kicked out and his CoC saw through it, ( You leaders out there know what I am talking about- you get that one pain in the a@@ who will do anything to get out of the service consequences be dammed.)
Be that as it may the fact is he was a low level intel analysts and if the charges against are proven to be true then he maliciously dug for the damaging information to give to Assange and his organization. That would mean that Manning is not the altruistic Hero that the lefties are portraying him as, he is just a disgruntled employee with a chip on his shoulder.

CORNELIUSSEON
01-28-2011, 01:35 PM
Found this report today from McClatchy News papers: Army commanders were warned against sending to Iraq an Army private who is suspected of leaking hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents to the secret-spilling site WikiLeaks.

Read the full story at www.mcclatchydc.com.

So I pose this question to you: According to this report the kid had a discipline problem and his unit deployed him anyway. So that tells me two things: One- His chain of command did not push the chapter hard enough or the packet was too weak. Two: He had major case of Tiny Heart syndrome and he was acting out on purpose so he could get kicked out and his CoC saw through it, ( You leaders out there know what I am talking about- you get that one pain in the a@@ who will do anything to get out of the service consequences be dammed.)
Be that as it may the fact is he was a low level intel analysts and if the charges against are proven to be true then he maliciously dug for the damaging information to give to Assange and his organization. That would mean that Manning is not the altruistic Hero that the lefties are portraying him as, he is just a disgruntled employee with a chip on his shoulder.

At the very least, they should have yanked his Clearance, and then Administratively reassign him to an MOS that was productive, but out of harms way, until such time as they could figure out just what was wrong with him, and then act accordingly. In the meantime, I certainly wouldn't have blocked his deployment because that would only feed his disciplinary issues. I suspect that he needs to learn that throwing tantrums just doesn't work in the Military.

candycane3482
01-28-2011, 03:08 PM
At the very least, they should have yanked his Clearance, and then Administratively reassign him to an MOS that was productive, but out of harms way, until such time as they could figure out just what was wrong with him, and then act accordingly. In the meantime, I certainly wouldn't have blocked his deployment because that would only feed his disciplinary issues. I suspect that he needs to learn that throwing tantrums just doesn't work in the Military.

I don't understand how he was so important or how they had a "shortage" of analysts. There is absolutely not a shortage of intel analysts (35F) in the Army at all. They send at least 150 through AIT now and even if you take away the number who get recycled or chaptered that's still alot left to go through. I am that MOS and we're not hurting for intel analysts. So whoever told the reporter of this article that they were hurting for intel analysts that his unit could not find ONE analyst in the entire Army to replace him? Give me a break.

I agree they should have yanked his clearend and reassigned him. What he did was wrong and illegal plain and simple. People outside the military need to understand that he broke the law period.

buzz211
01-28-2011, 06:43 PM
I don't understand how he was so important or how they had a "shortage" of analysts. There is absolutely not a shortage of intel analysts (35F) in the Army at all. They send at least 150 through AIT now and even if you take away the number who get recycled or chaptered that's still alot left to go through. I am that MOS and we're not hurting for intel analysts. So whoever told the reporter of this article that they were hurting for intel analysts that his unit could not find ONE analyst in the entire Army to replace him? Give me a break.

I agree they should have yanked his clearend and reassigned him. What he did was wrong and illegal plain and simple. People outside the military need to understand that he broke the law period.

Being that your are Intell let me ask you this question: Being that Manning was working in a Battalion S-2 and deployed how easy would it be for him to get the information that he “allegedly” passed on to Assange? Does SIPR have any safeguards/protocols to prevent and individual to basically “surf” through the SIPR? I mean if you are tracking IED trends in a district of Baghdad it would not require any comments from a state department official‘s impression of the leader of Chad for example. To get that type of information he would have to dig for it Correct? Or am I off base on that

CORNELIUSSEON
01-28-2011, 08:31 PM
I don't understand how he was so important or how they had a "shortage" of analysts. There is absolutely not a shortage of intel analysts (35F) in the Army at all. They send at least 150 through AIT now and even if you take away the number who get recycled or chaptered that's still alot left to go through. I am that MOS and we're not hurting for intel analysts. So whoever told the reporter of this article that they were hurting for intel analysts that his unit could not find ONE analyst in the entire Army to replace him? Give me a break.

I agree they should have yanked his clearend and reassigned him. What he did was wrong and illegal plain and simple. People outside the military need to understand that he broke the law period.

More than wrong, what he did is so stupid. I really hope he - and his "friends" - understand that no matter what other substantive charges they add to his charge sheet, what is already there is general enough to make it easy for him to be convicted because they all amount up to "Good Order and Discipline, and there is little or no gray area under that charge. His future will be a mess, and it will be his own fault. His "friends" will blame everyone in sight except him, and conspiracy theories will multiply ad infinitum.

candycane3482
01-28-2011, 08:57 PM
Being that your are Intell let me ask you this question: Being that Manning was working in a Battalion S-2 and deployed how easy would it be for him to get the information that he “allegedly” passed on to Assange? Does SIPR have any safeguards/protocols to prevent and individual to basically “surf” through the SIPR? I mean if you are tracking IED trends in a district of Baghdad it would not require any comments from a state department official‘s impression of the leader of Chad for example. To get that type of information he would have to dig for it Correct? Or am I off base on that

I think I read somewhere he may have been in a division ACE but I don't know. Most times yes we work in a BN or BDE S2. When I was in BN S2 I never went looking for state cables but it's very possible for even a lower level analyst to find it. I think most agencies have a SIPR site but I don't know for sure. It's possible he could've just went to their SIPR site and found them. If he was in a ACE he would have had different network access and depending on what his unit did, he could've gotten access to the cables.

Also officials have stated they can find no proof that Manning himself passed the info to Assange. He probably just submitted it on the site or passed it along through someone else who gave it to Assange.

Basically if your job is a certain area of Iraq then I don't see why you need access to state cables, especially at a BN or BDE level - or even division. There is no need why you have to know the views of the example you gave. All I did mostly in S2 was security clearances and derogatory reports and in Iraq we did more of what we learned in AIT with intel summaries, etc. Never did I have the need to read state cables though.

TJMAC77SP
01-28-2011, 09:25 PM
More than wrong, what he did is so stupid. I really hope he - and his "friends" - understand that no matter what other substantive charges they add to his charge sheet, what is already there is general enough to make it easy for him to be convicted because they all amount up to "Good Order and Discipline, and there is little or no gray area under that charge. His future will be a mess, and it will be his own fault. His "friends" will blame everyone in sight except him, and conspiracy theories will multiply ad infinitum.

So................he HASN'T plead guilty ?????

CORNELIUSSEON
01-28-2011, 09:59 PM
I think I read somewhere he may have been in a division ACE but I don't know. Most times yes we work in a BN or BDE S2. When I was in BN S2 I never went looking for state cables but it's very possible for even a lower level analyst to find it. I think most agencies have a SIPR site but I don't know for sure. It's possible he could've just went to their SIPR site and found them. If he was in a ACE he would have had different network access and depending on what his unit did, he could've gotten access to the cables.

Also officials have stated they can find no proof that Manning himself passed the info to Assange. He probably just submitted it on the site or passed it along through someone else who gave it to Assange.

Basically if your job is a certain area of Iraq then I don't see why you need access to state cables, especially at a BN or BDE level - or even division. There is no need why you have to know the views of the example you gave. All I did mostly in S2 was security clearances and derogatory reports and in Iraq we did more of what we learned in AIT with intel summaries, etc. Never did I have the need to read state cables though.

According to the Charge Sheet, his unit is HHC, STB, 2nd BCT, 10th Mountain Division (LI). He was at COS Hammer.

TJMAC77SP
01-30-2011, 03:27 PM
According to the Charge Sheet, his unit is HHC, STB, 2nd BCT, 10th Mountain Division (LI). He was at COS Hammer.

So................he HASN'T plead guilty ?????

in•teg•ri•ty–noun
1. adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.


cred•i•ble–adjective
1. capable of being believed; believable: a credible statement.
2. worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy: a credible witness.

CORNELIUSSEON
12-16-2011, 04:08 AM
After a year's wait, PFC Manning is back in the news:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/12/ap-military-bradley-manning-wikileaks-lots-at-stake-hearing-121511/

TJMAC77SP
12-16-2011, 05:52 PM
After a year's wait, PFC Manning is back in the news:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/12/ap-military-bradley-manning-wikileaks-lots-at-stake-hearing-121511/

And.........after a year you STILL haven't answered the questions started on page 7 resulting from more bullshit posted and never retracted.

Measure Man
12-16-2011, 07:39 PM
And.........after a year you STILL haven't answered the questions started on page 7 resulting from more bullshit posted and never retracted.

I think he is pleading "no lo comprende"

TJMAC77SP
12-16-2011, 08:53 PM
I think he is pleading "no lo comprende"

If it were earlier in the day that would have earned a screen snarf of tea.

Oh wait.....maybe he will give us his famous "Tell it to the crickets" retort......such sharp wit....I just can't deal with it.

Banned
12-16-2011, 11:10 PM
To my knowledge, he hasn't pled guilty yet. Quite the opposite, he's called up roughly 50 witnesses in his defense, most of which have been rejected by the investigating officer - raising some eyebrows in both the defense and the public.

This is a show trial, something one would expect to see in 1960 Moscow.

TJMAC77SP
12-17-2011, 02:10 AM
To my knowledge, he hasn't pled guilty yet. Quite the opposite, he's called up roughly 50 witnesses in his defense, most of which have been rejected by the investigating officer - raising some eyebrows in both the defense and the public.

This is a show trial, something one would expect to see in 1960 Moscow.

You need to start on page 7 (I think) and you will see that Corny decided what was plead a long time ago.

And I can't imagine why the judge objected to a list of witnesses (http://www.politico.com/static/PPM170_111204_defense32.html)that included President Obama and Secretary Clinton.

Banned
12-17-2011, 02:36 AM
Okay... and how about the other 37 witnesses denied?

And I did not realize politicians are exempt from appearing in court.

TJMAC77SP
12-17-2011, 12:18 PM
Okay... and how about the other 37 witnesses denied?

And I did not realize politicians are exempt from appearing in court.



Come on Joe........that list is a political stunt. I know you grasp that. It is tried in almost every case with political undertones and fails in most of them.

I want this kid (a broken kid in my opinion) to get a fair trail. What I don't want is for it to turn into some pulpit to promote some agenda. Either the kid committed the crimes or he didn't. Well more accurately, the DoD can prove he committed the crimes or they can't. The rest is just fluff.

CORNELIUSSEON
12-17-2011, 01:28 PM
And.........after a year you STILL haven't answered the questions started on page 7 resulting from more bullshit posted and never retracted.

Obviously you haven't noticed that I've not asked you to retract any of your garbage. The simple reason why I haven't is that I have better things to do with my time than worry about the quality of what you say on a forum. When you say something that I consider assinine, that I know you aren't going to want to change, I simply pass on to the next post. You are the one who likes to deflect, flame, and derail the flow of discussion, not me. And that is all I have to say on this topic.

CORNELIUSSEON
12-17-2011, 01:38 PM
To my knowledge, he hasn't pled guilty yet. Quite the opposite, he's called up roughly 50 witnesses in his defense, most of which have been rejected by the investigating officer - raising some eyebrows in both the defense and the public.

This is a show trial, something one would expect to see in 1960 Moscow.

We have had our share of show trials on this side of the Atlantic. The Rosenberg Trial comes to mind, as does the McCarthy Hearings. More recently, the Mai Lai Massacre Court-martial was mostly Show. General Court-martials tend to be that way by design because they normally send all controversial issues to that venue.

TJMAC77SP
12-17-2011, 02:53 PM
Obviously you haven't noticed that I've not asked you to retract any of your garbage. The simple reason why I haven't is that I have better things to do with my time than worry about the quality of what you say on a forum. When you say something that I consider assinine, that I know you aren't going to want to change, I simply pass on to the next post. You are the one who likes to deflect, flame, and derail the flow of discussion, not me. And that is all I have to say on this topic.



Why would I retract the truth? Give me one example and I will retract it if not true.

Flaming I will agree with, deflection......you are the frapping KING of deflection. Well to be truthful ATTEMPTS at deflection since most of the effort is pitiful.

This thread is yet another example.

You made claims as to his plea a year ago............false

You made claims as to what pleas are available in the Court Martial system......false.

To this day, no admission (as with every other bullshit filled post)

TJMAC77SP
12-17-2011, 02:59 PM
We have had our share of show trials on this side of the Atlantic. The Rosenberg Trial comes to mind, as does the McCarthy Hearings. More recently, the Mai Lai Massacre Court-martial was mostly Show. General Court-martials tend to be that way by design because they normally send all controversial issues to that venue.


Not sure what message you are trying to get across as it relates to Joe's post. Rosenburgs were tried in civilian court. The McCarthy hearings were not trials. I will agree that full justice was never rendered in the Mai Lai incident.

General Courts Martial are hardly 'shows' be design and if you mean that trials that make the news are usually the result of serious crimes and all serious crimes under the UCMJ go to General Court Martian and I suppose the irrelevant statement "they normally send all controversial issues to that venue" is true but nullified by the first part of the statement.

Banned
12-17-2011, 10:59 PM
Come on Joe........that list is a political stunt. I know you grasp that. It is tried in almost every case with political undertones and fails in most of them.

If Obama badmouthed me before my day in court, I would call him out on it too. Especially as the president, he is a part of the military chain of command. Obama oppened his trap to smooth the feathers of the warhawks, now he's being called out on it.

I would be interested in your explanation for why the OTHER 37 witnesses were denied - especially since most of them had a relatively large role in the events leading up to Manning's arrest. What was Manning's psychiatric evaluation? Was he deemed unfit for deployment, or was he not? If so, why wasn't his security clearance pulled? What was the unit's policy on external memory? Was this policy explained to the troops? Was the policy enforced? Was Manning seen copying or moving the leaked data? These are all questions that need to be answered in the trial. Even with a guilty verdict, they still need to be answered, as they explain his role in the leak, and his mental state at the time.


I want this kid (a broken kid in my opinion) to get a fair trail. What I don't want is for it to turn into some pulpit to promote some agenda. Either the kid committed the crimes or he didn't. Well more accurately, the DoD can prove he committed the crimes or they can't. The rest is just fluff.

That's the million dollar question, isn't it? So far, all the "evidence" the DoD has is a doctored chat log. Freedom of Information requests for the full transcript of the conversations in question are at this time unresolved. And even after a year of intense interrogation and solitary confinement, they still haven't dragged a confession out of him.

candycane3482
12-17-2011, 11:58 PM
If Obama badmouthed me before my day in court, I would call him out on it too. Especially as the president, he is a part of the military chain of command. Obama oppened his trap to smooth the feathers of the warhawks, now he's being called out on it.

I would be interested in your explanation for why the OTHER 37 witnesses were denied - especially since most of them had a relatively large role in the events leading up to Manning's arrest. What was Manning's psychiatric evaluation? Was he deemed unfit for deployment, or was he not? If so, why wasn't his security clearance pulled? What was the unit's policy on external memory? Was this policy explained to the troops? Was the policy enforced? Was Manning seen copying or moving the leaked data? These are all questions that need to be answered in the trial. Even with a guilty verdict, they still need to be answered, as they explain his role in the leak, and his mental state at the time.



That's the million dollar question, isn't it? So far, all the "evidence" the DoD has is a doctored chat log. Freedom of Information requests for the full transcript of the conversations in question are at this time unresolved. And even after a year of intense interrogation and solitary confinement, they still haven't dragged a confession out of him.

Should his chain of command be held accountable? Yes they should. They failed just as much as he did. However, I feel like people are avoiding the mere fact that Manning broke the law. He violated his non-disclosure agreement. He deserves to be punished for that at least.

Now the unit - if he worked in an S2 or whatever intel section he worked in was the WORST S2 ever. There is absolutely no way he should have been able to bring a CD to work and listen to it on a classified computer. That's how he downloaded the stuff - he put it on a CD labeled "Lady GaGa." I never even let people put DVDs into a SIPR computer. Then I was in Iraq when the virus happened and they shut off the USB ports to computers. Memory sticks went away after that because people don't know how to be responsible.

I'm not sure how he managed to get security clearance if he was so "mentally unstable." They do pretty thorough background checks so either he never had a mental evaluations during his investigation OR he lied on his SF86 (which is a federal offense itself). If he had any mental evaluations after his investigation, it's not going to get reported to OPM or CCF unless the S2 or Security Office reports it up.

TJMAC77SP
12-18-2011, 03:52 AM
If Obama badmouthed me before my day in court, I would call him out on it too. Especially as the president, he is a part of the military chain of command. Obama oppened his trap to smooth the feathers of the warhawks, now he's being called out on it.

I would be interested in your explanation for why the OTHER 37 witnesses were denied - especially since most of them had a relatively large role in the events leading up to Manning's arrest. What was Manning's psychiatric evaluation? Was he deemed unfit for deployment, or was he not? If so, why wasn't his security clearance pulled? What was the unit's policy on external memory? Was this policy explained to the troops? Was the policy enforced? Was Manning seen copying or moving the leaked data? These are all questions that need to be answered in the trial. Even with a guilty verdict, they still need to be answered, as they explain his role in the leak, and his mental state at the time.


Ahhhhh, another conspiracy. I get it. Who were the other 37 witnesses denied?

If indeed they could offer direct and relevant evidence to most of the things you mentioned then yes they should be heard from.




That's the million dollar question, isn't it? So far, all the "evidence" the DoD has is a doctored chat log. Freedom of Information requests for the full transcript of the conversations in question are at this time unresolved. And even after a year of intense interrogation and solitary confinement, they still haven't dragged a confession out of him.

"Doctored chat log"? Is this indeed a fact or something the defense is claiming? You realize there is often a difference right? "Dragged a confession out of him"....a little dramatic don't you think?

CORNELIUSSEON
12-18-2011, 04:09 AM
Why would I retract the truth? Give me one example and I will retract it if not true.

Flaming I will agree with, deflection......you are the frapping KING of deflection. Well to be truthful ATTEMPTS at deflection since most of the effort is pitiful.

This thread is yet another example.

You made claims as to his plea a year ago............false

You made claims as to what pleas are available in the Court Martial system......false.

To this day, no admission (as with every other bullshit filled post)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9peZ5WOtL0&feature=related

CORNELIUSSEON
12-18-2011, 04:28 AM
Not sure what message you are trying to get across as it relates to Joe's post. Rosenburgs were tried in civilian court. The McCarthy hearings were not trials. I will agree that full justice was never rendered in the Mai Lai incident.

General Courts Martial are hardly 'shows' be design and if you mean that trials that make the news are usually the result of serious crimes and all serious crimes under the UCMJ go to General Court Martian and I suppose the irrelevant statement "they normally send all controversial issues to that venue" is true but nullified by the first part of the statement.

My response to Joe's post is obvious. I will no longer get into long exchanges with him when I feel that his goal is to derail the
discussion.

The Rosenburg trial was none-the-less a show trial. The "proof" against them wasn't released until recent years. The McCarthy Hearings were not held in a court, that is true, but the fact that they were held by the Senate Investigations Committee, and the persons subpoenaed were penalized by Blacklisting when they stood behind their Constitutional Rights, makes the hearings a trial no matter what you call it. My comment on General Courtmartials was in reference to the Mai Lai Trial alone, which is why it and the comment on General Courtsmartial are in the same paragraph.

Shrike
12-18-2011, 01:26 PM
My response to Joe's post is obvious. I will no longer get into long exchanges with him when I feel that his goal is to derail the
discussion.

The Rosenburg trial was none-the-less a show trial. The "proof" against them wasn't released until recent years. The McCarthy Hearings were not held in a court, that is true, but the fact that they were held by the Senate Investigations Committee, and the persons subpoenaed were penalized by Blacklisting when they stood behind their Constitutional Rights, makes the hearings a trial no matter what you call it. My comment on General Courtmartials was in reference to the Mai Lai Trial alone, which is why it and the comment on General Courtsmartial are in the same paragraph.
And your comment on GCM remains just as wrong.

TJMAC77SP
12-18-2011, 01:51 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9peZ5WOtL0&feature=related



Oh SNAP !!!! You got me with the cricket sound. I have absolutely no comeback for that. God I wish I had a razor sharp wit....



Jesus Christ, talk about bringing a knife to a gunfight.



And still.....................

You made claims as to his plea a year ago............false

You made claims as to what pleas are available in the Court Martial system......false.

To this day, no admission (as with every other bullshit filled post)

CORNELIUSSEON
12-18-2011, 02:39 PM
And your comment on GCM remains just as wrong.

You can only say that because you didn't experience the period when they were still doing Summary Courtsmartial. In those days, many of the charges that go to Special Courtsmartial today were handled at the Summary level, and there was a likewise shift between Special and General Courts. That meant that only really serious issues - most of them with public and/or political and/or National Security overtones - were heard at the General level, and those were the only courtmarshal trials that were exposed to the press. The public still only learn about General Courtmartials, but there are many more of them these days.

Banned
12-18-2011, 07:36 PM
Ahhhhh, another conspiracy. I get it.

Where did I say that?


Who were the other 37 witnesses denied? If indeed they could offer direct and relevant evidence to most of the things you mentioned then yes they should be heard from.

Don't know. There names are withheld. But just going off of the descriptions, most of them seem pretty crucial, or at the very least relevant to the case.


"Doctored chat log"? Is this indeed a fact or something the defense is claiming?

Perhaps that's a strong word for it - but we certainly have not seen the FULL chat log, just pieces of it.



You realize there is often a difference right? "Dragged a confession out of him"....a little dramatic don't you think?

A year of solitary confinement, no non-military reading material, very limited visitation rights? Maybe you could do that without breaking a sweat, but I would be climbing up the walls by now.


My response to Joe's post is obvious. I will no longer get into long exchanges with him when I feel that his goal is to derail the discussion.

Your words are hurtful. How am I "derailing the discussion"?

SENDBILLMONEY
12-18-2011, 08:48 PM
You can only say that because you didn't experience the period when they were still doing Summary Courtsmartial. In those days, many of the charges that go to Special Courtsmartial today were handled at the Summary level, and there was a likewise shift between Special and General Courts. That meant that only really serious issues - most of them with public and/or political and/or National Security overtones - were heard at the General level, and those were the only courtmarshal trials that were exposed to the press. The public still only learn about General Courtmartials, but there are many more of them these days.

So you're saying we didn't experience right now? Summary courts-martial are still being done in the Air Force. They never stopped. I've done the paperwork on them and been present for trial from start to finish.

Banned
12-18-2011, 10:46 PM
I think what he meant is that offenses that used to be handled in a summary court martial are now pushed up to a special or, if they have political significance, to a general court martial.

Whether or not that claim is correct - I don't know.

TJMAC77SP
12-18-2011, 10:55 PM
You can only say that because you didn't experience the period when they were still doing Summary Courtsmartial. In those days, many of the charges that go to Special Courtsmartial today were handled at the Summary level, and there was a likewise shift between Special and General Courts. That meant that only really serious issues - most of them with public and/or political and/or National Security overtones - were heard at the General level, and those were the only courtmarshal trials that were exposed to the press. The public still only learn about General Courtmartials, but there are many more of them these days.



Have you ever read the UCMJ or more importantly the Manual for Courts Martial?

Be careful in answering that because if you claim you have then you are either stupid or making shit up (again) because (once more) you are dead wrong and if you claim you haven't read either document then at least you are simply ignorant.

Just to save you the trouble I have cited the appropriate articles of the UCMJ (not that I think it will actually prevent you from doing it anyway)

820 ART. 20: Summary courts-martial may, under such limitations as the President may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter except death, dismissal, dishonorable or bad- conduct discharge, confinement for more than one month, hard labor without confinement for more than 45 days, restrictions to specified limits for more than two months, or forfeiture of more than two-thirds of one month's pay.

ART. 19. Special courts-martial may, under such limitations as the President may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter except death, dishonorable discharge, dismissal, confinement for more than six months, hard labor without confinement for more than three months, forfeiture of pay exceeding two-thirds pay per month, or forfeiture of pay for more than six months. A bad-conduct discharge may not be adjudged unless a complete record of the proceedings and testimony has been made, counsel having the qualifications prescribed under section 827(b) of this title (article 27(b)) was detailed to represent the accused, and a military judge was detailed to the trial, except in any case in which a military judge could not be detailed to the trial, the convening authority shall make a detailed written statement, to be appended to the record, stating the reason or reasons a military judge could not be detailed.

818. ART. 18….general courts-martial have jurisdiction to try persons subject to this chapter for any offense made punishable by this chapter and may, under such limitations as the President may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter, including the penalty of death when specifically authorized by this chapter.

In other words for ANY offense where (among other factors) confinement of more than three months is the sentence, the trial MUST go to a General Court Martial.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the tripe you are attempting to foist on the MTF

It has ALWAYS been this way (at least for 70 plus years) so I don’t know what orifice you pull that stuff from but the whole PR aspect of your ‘theory is bullshit. As I said here.


…..General Courts Martial are hardly 'shows' be design and if you mean that trials that make the news are usually the result of serious crimes and all serious crimes under the UCMJ go to General Court Martian and I suppose the irrelevant statement "they normally send all controversial issues to that venue" is true but nullified by the first part of the statement.

TJMAC77SP
12-18-2011, 10:57 PM
I think what he meant is that offenses that used to be handled in a summary court martial are now pushed up to a special or, if they have political significance, to a general court martial.

Whether or not that claim is correct - I don't know.

......It isn't.

TJMAC77SP
12-18-2011, 11:04 PM
Where did I say that?

You didn't....I inferred it


Don't know. There names are withheld. But just going off of the descriptions, most of them seem pretty crucial, or at the very least relevant to the case.

So we don’t know the facts as it pertains to the witnesses but we can assume the military judge does and ruled against their inclusion? Perhaps we should wait and review the list that has been approved?



Perhaps that's a strong word for it - but we certainly have not seen the FULL chat log, just pieces of it.

Perhaps the court’s normal evidence certification process will ensure it is complete and accurate?




A year of solitary confinement, no non-military reading material, very limited visitation rights? Maybe you could do that without breaking a sweat, but I would be climbing up the walls by now.

Well I thought there was a year of intense interrogation. Of course I knew he was represented by legal counsel so assumed that the ‘intense interrogation’ stopped the day his lawyer showed up at Quantico.



Your words are hurtful. How am I "derailing the discussion"?

I didn’t get that either. I figured he meant me or someone else since you are the only person remotely supporting him
and in Corny's mind, anyone who doesn't support him is guilty of things like 'derailing the discussion'.

Banned
12-18-2011, 11:35 PM
Concerning your back-and-forth with Corny on Court Martials - I haven't read the order since boot camp (the section you just quoted) - but from what I understand, its based on the maximum penalty for the crime - so if they want to slam you harder, they'll take it up a level. So would you agree with the statement that what kind of court martial you did is based on what you did, who you are, and how your command feels about you?


You didn't....I inferred it

So we don’t know the facts as it pertains to the witnesses but we can assume the military judge does and ruled against their inclusion? Perhaps we should wait and review the list that has been approved?

I agree that its still too early to draw any definite conclusions yet - but I do find it curious that such a large portion of the initial list was rejected - don't you?



Perhaps the court’s normal evidence certification process will ensure it is complete and accurate?

I could be mistaken, but I have never heard of anyone convicted of anything based on chat logs alone. Especially in this case, where the chat originated from an incomplete transcript leaked by Wired.


Well I thought there was a year of intense interrogation. Of course I knew he was represented by legal counsel so assumed that the ‘intense interrogation’ stopped the day his lawyer showed up at Quantico.

If you have a better word for forced nudity and sleep deprivation I'd be glad to hear it. Perhaps they were doing it for shits and giggles - or maybe there was some rhyme or reason for it. A full confession out of Manning would certainly be helpful - Manning is a small fish, but he could be used as grounds to get the Big Fish, Assange, brought over to the US.


I didn’t get that either. I figured he meant me or someone else since you are the only person remotely supporting him
and in Corny's mind, anyone who doesn't support him is guilty of things like 'derailing the discussion'.

That's probably why.

TJMAC77SP
12-19-2011, 01:05 AM
Concerning your back-and-forth with Corny on Court Martials - I haven't read the order since boot camp (the section you just quoted) - but from what I understand, its based on the maximum penalty for the crime - so if they want to slam you harder, they'll take it up a level. So would you agree with the statement that what kind of court martial you did is based on what you did, who you are, and how your command feels about you?

No… It is the charges that make the determination. If you are charged with, for example, Rape you can be sentenced to Life in confinement. This means that regardless of who thinks what of you the court martial will be a General Court Martial. It doesn’t matter if Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper or Glenn Beck do stories on the trial. It is going to be a General Court Martial because of the charge of rape, NOT the news coverage.



I agree that its still too early to draw any definite conclusions yet - but I do find it curious that such a large portion of the initial list was rejected - don't you?

Without knowing who was on the list I think any curiosity is premature. Defense attorneys have been known to pad witness lists with completely irrelevant people, particularly in politically charged trials. Also when their client doesn’t have much of a defense.



I could be mistaken, but I have never heard of anyone convicted of anything based on chat logs alone. Especially in this case, where the chat originated from an incomplete transcript leaked by Wired.

Neither have I. Is that they only evidence they have because I having read a list of evidence?



If you have a better word for forced nudity and sleep deprivation I'd be glad to hear it. Perhaps they were doing it for shits and giggles - or maybe there was some rhyme or reason for it. A full confession out of Manning would certainly be helpful - Manning is a small fish, but he could be used as grounds to get the Big Fish, Assange, brought over to the US.

I haven’t heard anything about sleep deprivation and as to the ‘Forced nudity’, that was a sensational story put out by his defense attorney. He was issued and wore suicide preventative clothing. I believe (but could be wrong) it is made of a tyek type material. Nearly impossible to rip (and make anything which could be used to strangle or hang oneself).

As for Assange, unless Manning had direct contact with him I don’t see how he can be used (directly) to do anything to Assange. He is fast becoming irrelevant. Not worth the effort.

Banned
12-19-2011, 03:03 AM
......It isn't.

Care to explain? So are you saying every offender is going to receive exactly the same process and punishment? Every DUI, every sex scandal, every theft is going to be treated in exactly the same fashion, regardless of the circumstances, location, and people involved?


No… It is the charges that make the determination. If you are charged with, for example, Rape you can be sentenced to Life in confinement. This means that regardless of who thinks what of you the court martial will be a General Court Martial. It doesn’t matter if Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper or Glenn Beck do stories on the trial. It is going to be a General Court Martial because of the charge of rape, NOT the news coverage.


Unlikely. I know of at least a couple of Marines in Haiti who were caught, ahem... engaging... grateful natives while standing post. On paper, the command is supposed to throw the book at them (Article 92, 134, and whatever else the CO can think of) - they were given shitty shifts the rest of the deployment, but no official charges were brought against them. Most likely, the command didn't want any embarrassing stories marring our glorious humanitarian mission. Politics DEFINITELY plays a role, in pretty much everything.


Without knowing who was on the list I think any curiosity is premature. Defense attorneys have been known to pad witness lists with completely irrelevant people, particularly in politically charged trials.

You think curiosity is premature?

We're talking about the leak that made the American government look like a bunch of Fascist idiots. I would say some curiosity is DEFINITELY in order in everything pertaining to this.



Also when their client doesn’t have much of a defense.

Which makes him a perfect suspect. Not unlike our favorite car salesman.



Neither have I. Is that they only evidence they have because I having read a list of evidence?

Nothing directly tying him to the leak, that I am aware of.

But we know he did it. The Federal Government has never set up a fall guy before.


I haven’t heard anything about sleep deprivation and as to the ‘Forced nudity’, that was a sensational story put out by his defense attorney. He was issued and wore suicide preventative clothing. I believe (but could be wrong) it is made of a tyek type material. Nearly impossible to rip (and make anything which could be used to strangle or hang oneself).

Nope, and prison officials have admitted to it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/world/05manning.html?_r=2

Still haven't addressed my point about the solitary confinement, incidentally. How's 19 months of that sound?


As for Assange, unless Manning had direct contact with him I don’t see how he can be used (directly) to do anything to Assange. He is fast becoming irrelevant. Not worth the effort.

From what I've read, that's pretty much what he would have to confess to. But you're right, Assange is becoming pretty irrelevant. Our smear campaign was a success, and nobody cared about the leak. Quite frankly, Americans don't care what our government does anymore.

Shrike
12-19-2011, 12:17 PM
You can only say that because you didn't experience the period when they were still doing Summary Courtsmartial. In those days, many of the charges that go to Special Courtsmartial today were handled at the Summary level, and there was a likewise shift between Special and General Courts. That meant that only really serious issues - most of them with public and/or political and/or National Security overtones - were heard at the General level, and those were the only courtmarshal trials that were exposed to the press. The public still only learn about General Courtmartials, but there are many more of them these days.

Keep digging. Maybe while you're doing so you'll find some truth.

TJMAC77SP
12-19-2011, 01:19 PM
Care to explain? So are you saying every offender is going to receive exactly the same process and punishment? Every DUI, every sex scandal, every theft is going to be treated in exactly the same fashion, regardless of the circumstances, location, and people involved?

Joe, the claim was “that offenses that used to be handled in a summary court martial are now pushed up to a special or, if they have political significance, to a general court martial.” Simply isn’t true. If you want to discuss the minute workings of the military justice system as a whole I think we will need a whole new thread. I think you knew that.


Unlikely. I know of at least a couple of Marines in Haiti who were caught, ahem... engaging... grateful natives while standing post. On paper, the command is supposed to throw the book at them (Article 92, 134, and whatever else the CO can think of) - they were given shitty shifts the rest of the deployment, but no official charges were brought against them. Most likely, the command didn't want any embarrassing stories marring our glorious humanitarian mission. Politics DEFINITELY plays a role, in pretty much everything.

Again, if we are to discuss the military justice system……….oh never mind.

Joe, you really aren’t comparing cases like that to Manning’s case are you? Come on.


You think curiosity is premature?

When you attach a premature assumption to it, yes.


We're talking about the leak that made the American government look like a bunch of Fascist idiots. I would say some curiosity is DEFINITELY in order in everything pertaining to this.

That is your opinion. Having been on the sending end of a lot of cables such as those released I don’t believe they do. I think we had a discussion on this on another thread didn’t we? They did cause an immense amount of embarrassment and harmed relationships with many countries. They may have also endangered lives (sources and assets). I can’t speak to that (and frankly neither can you) with any definite authority (and wouldn’t even if I could).

Bottom line is that I don’t begrudge your curiosity. I hold much myself. I for one will wait and see what comes out in trial.



Which makes him a perfect suspect. Not unlike our favorite car salesman.

Yes, we all know what you think of that case and yet, nothing to do with my comment.



Nothing directly tying him to the leak, that I am aware of.

Again, perhaps it will come out in evidence. Maybe they found a CD titled “Lady Gaga” with classified material on it. Who knows?


But we know he did it. The Federal Government has never set up a fall guy before.

So, is that you saying even if he is found guilty, you won’t accept the verdict? If so, why are we having this discussion?



Nope, and prison officials have admitted to it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/world/05manning.html?_r=2

Still haven't addressed my point about the solitary confinement, incidentally. How's 19 months of that sound?

I couldn’t view the link. I don’t subscribe to the NYtimes. What did the government admit to? As to the solitary confinement. I really don’t know if he was kept in solitary. My guess is that he might have been kept in administrative segregation or whatever the military calls protective custody. Given the publicity of this case, if I ran either of the confinement facilities he was kept at I would not let him mix with the general population. Solitary confinement is a different animal. It is not just being kept away from other inmates. I don’t know what the conditions of his confinement were.

EDIT: I was able to view the story. I also googled some other reporting. Evidently Manning was forced to sleep naked for several days before being given the tear-proof garments. He made remarks about killing himself using the waistband of his underwear or even his flipflops. An over reaction for sure and damn silly. Thankfully he didn't have to endure it more than a few days.



From what I've read, that's pretty much what he would have to confess to. But you're right, Assange is becoming pretty irrelevant. Our smear campaign was a success, and nobody cared about the leak. Quite frankly, Americans don't care what our government does anymore.

And you wonder why I infer conspiracy theories from your posts.

Look I am as interested in this kid receiving a fair trial as you. If there are any sinister acts which have occurred along the way I hope they are uncovered and the guilty punished. I just won’t make dark assumptions without evidence.

CORNELIUSSEON
12-19-2011, 02:18 PM
Keep digging. Maybe while you're doing so you'll find some truth.

No need for me to do any "digging" in this case since I WAS THERE during the period stated. I only needed to remember those days.

You, on the other hand, are obviously too young to remember those days, and so need to depend on the memory of someone older than you.

Shrike
12-19-2011, 04:27 PM
No need for me to do any "digging" in this case since I WAS THERE during the period stated. I only needed to remember those days.

You, on the other hand, are obviously too young to remember those days, and so need to depend on the memory of someone older than you.

You were wrong about what goes to GCM. Wrong, wrong, wrong. And, as usual, you won't admit to it. Now you've pulled out Corny Evasion Tactic #43: Appeal to Age As Authority. But you yourself contradict your own tactic, as you continually post wrong information.

And what happened to your idiotic "Cricket" response? Did you finally come to the realization that you were mocking your own failure to respond when questioned on your errors? Or at your advanced age did you completely miss this? Luckily for you there were some younger guys around to point that out for you.

TJMAC77SP
12-19-2011, 05:07 PM
No need for me to do any "digging" in this case since I WAS THERE during the period stated. I only needed to remember those days.

You, on the other hand, are obviously too young to remember those days, and so need to depend on the memory of someone older than you.



When you say you were "there" is that "there" in the same sense as when you were "across the street from the anti-war protesters in DC in 1969"? If so, that is a pretty broad definition of 'there'.

BTW: I am not too young and as has been stated several times......you are wrong, wrong, wrong, and oh yeah....wrong.

TJMAC77SP
12-19-2011, 05:08 PM
And what happened to your idiotic "Cricket" response? Did you finally come to the realization that you were mocking your own failure to respond when questioned on your errors? Or at your advanced age did you completely miss this? Luckily for you there were some younger guys around to point that out for you.



He missed it.......and some of us are pretty close to Corny's age so his bullshit 'I am old enough to remember' tactic doesn't wash with us either.

CORNELIUSSEON
12-19-2011, 06:13 PM
You were wrong about what goes to GCM. Wrong, wrong, wrong. And, as usual, you won't admit to it. Now you've pulled out Corny Evasion Tactic #43: Appeal to Age As Authority. But you yourself contradict your own tactic, as you continually post wrong information.

And what happened to your idiotic "Cricket" response? Did you finally come to the realization that you were mocking your own failure to respond when questioned on your errors? Or at your advanced age did you completely miss this? Luckily for you there were some younger guys around to point that out for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9peZ5WOtL0&feature=related

Shrike
12-19-2011, 06:38 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9peZ5WOtL0&feature=related

That's what I thought. Way to mock yourself, old guy!

SENDBILLMONEY
12-19-2011, 10:33 PM
Have you ever read the UCMJ or more importantly the Manual for Courts Martial?

Be careful in answering that because if you claim you have then you are either stupid or making shit up (again) because (once more) you are dead wrong and if you claim you haven't read either document then at least you are simply ignorant.

Just to save you the trouble I have cited the appropriate articles of the UCMJ (not that I think it will actually prevent you from doing it anyway)

(snip)

ART. 19. Special courts-martial may, under such limitations as the President may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter except death, dishonorable discharge, dismissal, confinement for more than six months, hard labor without confinement for more than three months, forfeiture of pay exceeding two-thirds pay per month, or forfeiture of pay for more than six months. A bad-conduct discharge may not be adjudged unless a complete record of the proceedings and testimony has been made, counsel having the qualifications prescribed under section 827(b) of this title (article 27(b)) was detailed to represent the accused, and a military judge was detailed to the trial, except in any case in which a military judge could not be detailed to the trial, the convening authority shall make a detailed written statement, to be appended to the record, stating the reason or reasons a military judge could not be detailed.

Respectfully, Article 19 was changed to provide for a lengthier maximum sentence.

§ 819. ART. 19. JURISDICTION OF SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

Subject to section 817 of this title (article 17), special courts-martial have jurisdiction to try persons subject to this chapter for any noncapital offense made punishable by this chapter and, under such regulations as the President may prescribe, for capital offenses. Special courts-martial may, under such limitations as the President may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter except death, dishonorable discharge, dismissal, confinement for more than one year, hard labor without confinement for more than three months, forfeiture of pay exceeding two-thirds pay per month, or forfeiture of pay for more than one year. A bad-conduct discharge, confinement for more than six months, or forfeiture of pay for more than six months may not be adjudged unless a complete record of the proceedings and testimony has been made, counsel having the qualifications prescribed under section 827 (b) of this title (article 27(b)) was detailed to represent the accused, and a military judge was detailed to the trial, except in any case in which a military judge could not be detailed to the trial because of physical conditions or military exigencies. In any such case in which a military judge was not detailed to the trial, the convening authority shall make a detailed written statement, to be appended to the record, stating the reason or reasons a military judge could not be detailed.

TJMAC77SP
12-19-2011, 10:47 PM
Respectfully, Article 19 was changed to provide for a lengthier maximum sentence.

§ 819. ART. 19. JURISDICTION OF SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

Subject to section 817 of this title (article 17), special courts-martial have jurisdiction to try persons subject to this chapter for any noncapital offense made punishable by this chapter and, under such regulations as the President may prescribe, for capital offenses. Special courts-martial may, under such limitations as the President may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter except death, dishonorable discharge, dismissal, confinement for more than one year, hard labor without confinement for more than three months, forfeiture of pay exceeding two-thirds pay per month, or forfeiture of pay for more than one year. A bad-conduct discharge, confinement for more than six months, or forfeiture of pay for more than six months may not be adjudged unless a complete record of the proceedings and testimony has been made, counsel having the qualifications prescribed under section 827 (b) of this title (article 27(b)) was detailed to represent the accused, and a military judge was detailed to the trial, except in any case in which a military judge could not be detailed to the trial because of physical conditions or military exigencies. In any such case in which a military judge was not detailed to the trial, the convening authority shall make a detailed written statement, to be appended to the record, stating the reason or reasons a military judge could not be detailed.



Thank you. Good to have accurate information.

Of course this change in no way supports Corny's ludicrous bullshit

Banned
12-19-2011, 11:36 PM
Joe, the claim was “that offenses that used to be handled in a summary court martial are now pushed up to a special or, if they have political significance, to a general court martial.” Simply isn’t true. If you want to discuss the minute workings of the military justice system as a whole I think we will need a whole new thread. I think you knew that.

Again, if we are to discuss the military justice system……….oh never mind.

Joe, you really aren’t comparing cases like that to Manning’s case are you? Come on.

Right, I got all that - I'm not trying to take sides in the TJmac/Corny ping pong match - I'm just saying that personal politics, within a battalion or beyond, can play a role in what type of court martial is used, if any. And no, I'm not comparing it to Manning, just a side discussion.


When you attach a premature assumption to it, yes.

That is your opinion. Having been on the sending end of a lot of cables such as those released I don’t believe they do. I think we had a discussion on this on another thread didn’t we? They did cause an immense amount of embarrassment and harmed relationships with many countries. They may have also endangered lives (sources and assets).

Maybe. But from an international perspective, the leaks seem to have had a positive reception. Sadly, not so much as a whimper from the American public. It just taught Obama that he doesn't need to keep his undeclared wars a secret - they can be up on the front page and nobody cares.


I can’t speak to that (and frankly neither can you) with any definite authority (and wouldn’t even if I could).

If even one person was hurt from the leaks, the media probably would have beat us over the head with it already.

And inidentally, the Federal Government was given the option by Wikileaks to censor any names or anything sensitive to current operations, the offer was rejected. So if our "sources and assets" were endangered... who's fault is that?

Bottom line is that I don’t begrudge your curiosity. I hold much myself. I for one will wait and see what comes out in trial.


Yes, we all know what you think of that case

It is quite funny though. The nefarious Iranians hire a washed up car salesman and a mexican stool pigeon to take out a diplomat of absolutely no strategic value... really? Is this really the best "terrorism" scare-mongering the Feds can come up with?

Still not as funny as the pipe bomber making explosives out of... match-stick heads.


and yet, nothing to do with my comment.

I don't know what his defense is going to be except what they've released so far. But then again, not much in the way of "evidence" has been publicly cited either.


Again, perhaps it will come out in evidence. Maybe they found a CD titled “Lady Gaga” with classified material on it. Who knows?

I think some searches did turn up some classified material - I don't know if they were part of what was leaked or if they could be positively linked to him. Still too murky at this point?


So, is that you saying even if he is found guilty, you won’t accept the verdict? If so, why are we having this discussion?

I say it DOESN'T MATTER if he's found guilty or not, because he will be dealt with regardless. After all, its "national interests" right?


I couldn’t view the link. I don’t subscribe to the NYtimes. What did the government admit to? As to the solitary confinement. I really don’t know if he was kept in solitary. My guess is that he might have been kept in administrative segregation or whatever the military calls protective custody. Given the publicity of this case, if I ran either of the confinement facilities he was kept at I would not let him mix with the general population. Solitary confinement is a different animal. It is not just being kept away from other inmates. I don’t know what the conditions of his confinement were.

EDIT: I was able to view the story. I also googled some other reporting. Evidently Manning was forced to sleep naked for several days before being given the tear-proof garments. He made remarks about killing himself using the waistband of his underwear or even his flipflops. An over reaction for sure and damn silly. Thankfully he didn't have to endure it more than a few days.

It's funny how the only government that has gotten through the Wikileaks debacle with even an ounce of dignity is the UK.


And you wonder why I infer conspiracy theories from your posts.

Look I am as interested in this kid receiving a fair trial as you. If there are any sinister acts which have occurred along the way I hope they are uncovered and the guilty punished. I just won’t make dark assumptions without evidence.

Yeah I guess. Quite frankly, I'm sick of being "the world's last superpower".

SENDBILLMONEY
12-20-2011, 12:34 AM
Thank you. Good to have accurate information.

Of course this change in no way supports Corny's ludicrous bullshit

No problem. Look at us setting a good example on how to respectfully offer and acknowledge updated information. It's a pity that some people serve until retirement and never master that simple exchange.

TJMAC77SP
12-20-2011, 01:15 AM
No problem. Look at us setting a good example on how to respectfully offer and acknowledge updated information. It's a pity that some people serve until retirement and never master that simple exchange.



Wow, role models?

SENDBILLMONEY
12-20-2011, 09:35 AM
Wow, role models?

In my case, the "a stopped clock is still right twice a day" saying applies.

CORNELIUSSEON
12-30-2011, 07:16 PM
Which Marine Brig is he confined to - the one at Quantico? Or at Camp Lejeune? I would say he should consider himself lucky since he was stationed at Ft. Drum prior to his deployment to Iraq, he could have very well found himself in one of the local county lock ups in the area and placed in the General Population. (The locals usually do not segregate soldiers given confinement from the Gen Pop). On two occasions I have had to escort soldiers to a military confinement facility, and believe me they would rather be in a military lock up than a county lock up any day of the week.

Found this the ither day as an update on Manning:http://tucsoncitizen.com/usa-today-news/author/joe-gould-army-times/

Banned
12-30-2011, 10:59 PM
I'm actually astonished here. I figured even if he is guilty, evidence would be scarce. He was dumb enough to leave all that shit just laying around on his computer, even with his techie background?

candycane3482
12-31-2011, 02:27 AM
I'm actually astonished here. I figured even if he is guilty, evidence would be scarce. He was dumb enough to leave all that shit just laying around on his computer, even with his techie background?


Where did I miss that he has a tech background? All I knew is that he was an intelligence analyst. That doesn't mean techie background but if I missed that then yeah - he's pretty retarded. Well he was pretty retarded to download classified information to begin with. Let's forget what he downloaded and whether it was overclassified or not. The fact is anytime you are given access to classified or sensitive material, you sign a non-disclosure agreement. After your access is done or you no longer have a need to know, you sign a debrief that states you won't divulge any information you saw while you had access. That alone he broke the law. THAT is my biggest beef with this kid. I hope he pays for what he did and learns a lesson.

CORNELIUSSEON
12-31-2011, 03:42 AM
I'm actually astonished here. I figured even if he is guilty, evidence would be scarce. He was dumb enough to leave all that shit just laying around on his computer, even with his techie background?

If he is as much of a Techie as people say, then he should know that when you recreate the C:Drive when you have a large hard drive, unless you actually overwrite the original location most of the files you have replaced are still there, and easily found by someone who both has the proper software, and knows just where to look. All you really do is to erase the first digit of the file name, which abandons the file in place. Even if you do overwrite the original location, you still leave fragments of the files in place. The only guarranteed method of eliminating the original files is to replace the actual drive with a fresh one.

Banned
01-01-2012, 05:44 AM
Where did I miss that he has a tech background? All I knew is that he was an intelligence analyst. That doesn't mean techie background but if I missed that then yeah - he's pretty retarded. Well he was pretty retarded to download classified information to begin with. Let's forget what he downloaded and whether it was overclassified or not. The fact is anytime you are given access to classified or sensitive material, you sign a non-disclosure agreement. After your access is done or you no longer have a need to know, you sign a debrief that states you won't divulge any information you saw while you had access. That alone he broke the law. THAT is my biggest beef with this kid. I hope he pays for what he did and learns a lesson.

I also hope the US government pays for what they did... but hey... that won't happen.

JD2780
01-01-2012, 04:31 PM
I also hope the US government pays for what they did... but hey... that won't happen.

What exactly did the US Gov't do? Go into Iraq get rid of a dictator then screw up royally. I dont think there was any malicious intent there, but hey you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about it.

TJMAC77SP
01-01-2012, 04:33 PM
Ya think ??

Pullinteeth
01-03-2012, 07:19 PM
I also hope the US government pays for what they did... but hey... that won't happen.

And how do you propose THAT happens? Fine the government-then you are punishing taxpayers. Lock up all the Congressmen that voted for the war? Two Presidents? How about the governments of all of our coalition partners? I guess they should get a free pass...

candycane3482
01-03-2012, 08:54 PM
I also hope the US government pays for what they did... but hey... that won't happen.

What is that exactly? So you think this kid should slide because...why? No one's perfect and I get that. When you can figure out how to hold members of a government accountable for actions that they did, go for it. This kid got caught so let him pay. I'm not as extreme as others saying execute him or anything.

Banned
01-04-2012, 02:35 AM
And how do you propose THAT happens? Fine the government-then you are punishing taxpayers. Lock up all the Congressmen that voted for the war? Two Presidents? How about the governments of all of our coalition partners? I guess they should get a free pass...

None of that is going to happen. Though its worth noting that Bush cancelled several of his trips to Europe out of fear of being tried for war crimes.


What is that exactly? So you think this kid should slide because...why? No one's perfect and I get that. When you can figure out how to hold members of a government accountable for actions that they did, go for it. This kid got caught so let him pay. I'm not as extreme as others saying execute him or anything.

I just think its funny that we're so busy punishing Manning, destroying Assange, and declaring Wikileaks "terrorists" we don't stop and think about the information they made public.

TJMAC77SP
01-04-2012, 10:45 AM
None of that is going to happen. Though its worth noting that Bush cancelled several of his trips to Europe out of fear of being tried for war crimes.



I just think its funny that we're so busy punishing Manning, destroying Assange, and declaring Wikileaks "terrorists" we don't stop and think about the information they made public.



Still attempting to foist the theory that no harm was done by the release of the information?

Who declared Wikileaks terrorists?

You subscribe to the conspiracy theory that Sweden wants to question Assange not because he has been accused of rape but because the US pressured Sweden to extradite him?

Pullinteeth
01-04-2012, 10:29 PM
None of that is going to happen. Though its worth noting that Bush cancelled several of his trips to Europe out of fear of being tried for war crimes.

I just think its funny that we're so busy punishing Manning, destroying Assange, and declaring Wikileaks "terrorists" we don't stop and think about the information they made public.

How is that worth noting? You said nothing about punishing individual members of government, you stated the government should be made to pay.

Again, how do you propose to punish the GOVERNMENT?

Banned
01-05-2012, 02:54 AM
How is that worth noting? You said nothing about punishing individual members of government, you stated the government should be made to pay.

Again, how do you propose to punish the GOVERNMENT?

It was more rhetorical than anything (because it could never happen). But you're right - we the taxpayers are responsible for our government's actions, so we are responsible for the consequences of our actions. I doubt anyone will be prosecuted for our foreign wars, but it wouldn't surprise me if someone retaliates in the near future. So far we've been lucky that all of the enemies we create in the GWOT have been too incompetent/lazy/stupid/poor to strike back in any meaningful sense. But if we keep it up, it's bound to happen eventually.


Still attempting to foist the theory that no harm was done by the release of the information?

No one has died that I'm aware of. And no, I don't consider politicians looking stupid to be "damage".


Who declared Wikileaks terrorists?

Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20023941-38.html

Silly man... only Muslims can be "terrorists". We need to declare Wikileaks Muslims before we can declare them to be terrorists.


You subscribe to the conspiracy theory that Sweden wants to question Assange not because he has been accused of rape but because the US pressured Sweden to extradite him?

First off, its "molestation" - the rape charges were too absurd to even last a week. As for how exactly Assange "molested" the groupies... nobody knows.

Yes, its fairly obvious that the American government had something to do with the case.

TJMAC77SP
01-05-2012, 11:39 AM
No one has died that I'm aware of. And no, I don't consider politicians looking stupid to be "damage".

So you would only concede that harm was done if someone died as a result? Pretty narrow parameter (as well as naive)




Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20023941-38.html

Silly man... only Muslims can be "terrorists". We need to declare Wikileaks Muslims before we can declare them to be terrorists.

Ah yes, Rep King. I should have known better. Of course Wikileaks has not ACTUALLY been declared a terrorist organization and Assange has not ACTUALLY been declared a terrorist.

For the record not every groups declared terrorists by the US government is Muslim and the first were not Muslim extremists

Oh, wait, you knew that didn't you? I get it....a little hyperbole to make a point. Got it.


First off, its "molestation" - the rape charges were too absurd to even last a week. As for how exactly Assange "molested" the groupies... nobody knows.

Yes, its fairly obvious that the American government had something to do with the case.

Actually I believe the charges the warrant was issued for were rape and molestation and he did so by having sex with them in a fashion that allegedly violated Swedish law but regardless that wasn't really the point. For those of us who can't really 'know' what is going on without some actually facts and proof can you explain how it is obvious to you that Sweden (who has no real history of bending to the will of the US or anyone for that matter) is doing the bidding of the US government in this matter.

Banned
01-05-2012, 06:49 PM
So you would only concede that harm was done if someone died as a result? Pretty narrow parameter (as well as naive)

What would YOU consider to be "damage"? IMO - if the world is made more aware of our leaders' aggression and absolute contempt for foreign culture, the better. But frankly, everyone is already aware of that - the only ones who remain ignorant are Americans. The average American is not a bad person, but chooses to keep himself ignorant of whats going on outside his borders.


Ah yes, Rep King. I should have known better. Of course Wikileaks has not ACTUALLY been declared a terrorist organization and Assange has not ACTUALLY been declared a terrorist.

For the record not every groups declared terrorists by the US government is Muslim and the first were not Muslim extremists

Oh, wait, you knew that didn't you? I get it....a little hyperbole to make a point. Got it.

So you deny the Right is up in arms about Assange and Wikileaks?


Actually I believe the charges the warrant was issued for were rape and molestation

As I said already, the rape charges were dropped.


and he did so by having sex with them in a fashion that allegedly violated Swedish law but regardless that wasn't really the point. For those of us who can't really 'know' what is going on without some actually facts and proof can you explain how it is obvious to you that Sweden (who has no real history of bending to the will of the US or anyone for that matter) is doing the bidding of the US government in this matter.

Its speculative - but certainly convenient. Assange exposes the US government to be the jackasses they are, seeks residency in Sweden, threatens more leaks... then all of a sudden a couple groupies materialize who accuse him of hurting their feelings - coincidence?

TJMAC77SP
01-05-2012, 07:51 PM
What would YOU consider to be "damage"? IMO - if the world is made more aware of our leaders' aggression and absolute contempt for foreign culture, the better. But frankly, everyone is already aware of that - the only ones who remain ignorant are Americans.

This was discussed on another thread (which I believe you participated in but I may be wrong). The President and other cabinet level leaders need no-shit, honest and candid impressions from the people who represent the President in foreign capitals. This often means writing things which would embarrass the foreign official and/or government were they ever to be made public. It is complete naivity to believe that one could offer true and insightful opinions on happenings in foreign capitals and remain what would seem to be a pretty high standard of civility. Particularly if the author(s) thought their opinions would not be shared outside of US government channels. Even the government channels would be pretty narrow with regard to the raw text in DoS cables.

I am sure the average person could relate if one were to consider every private conversation being released to the world. Some things said may have been needed to be said to the audience but not necessarily smart to release to the whole world. This has harmed relations with foreign countries. Eventually it will die down (and probably already has in most places) but you can be sure it is never far from the mind of anyone who meets for a ‘private’ meeting with a US official. I also believe there were unspoken consequences but that of course will probably always remain speculative. In other words, I am not stating this as a fact but merely my unsupported opinion.



So you deny the Right is up in arms about Assange and Wikileaks?

I deny nothing. I merely stated that neither Wikileaks nor Assange has been declared a terrorist organization (or terrorist) by the US government (as you asserted). The rest is hyperbole. For example your assertion is that ONLY the right is ‘up in arms’? I have never heard either Hillary Clinton nor President Obama described as right-wing.



As I said already, the rape charges were dropped.

I couldn’t find a reference to that but as I said, the charges weren’t the point.



Its speculative - but certainly convenient. Assange exposes the US government to be the jackasses they are, seeks residency in Sweden, threatens more leaks... then all of a sudden a couple groupies materialize who accuse him of hurting their feelings - coincidence?

By speculative it would seem wishful thinking. While I am not a big fan of coincidences, they do occur. Have any more leaks been released? I am still awaiting the smoking gun which has been promised at least twice.

Banned
01-05-2012, 11:15 PM
This was discussed on another thread (which I believe you participated in but I may be wrong). The President and other cabinet level leaders need no-shit, honest and candid impressions from the people who represent the President in foreign capitals. This often means writing things which would embarrass the foreign official and/or government were they ever to be made public. It is complete naivity to believe that one could offer true and insightful opinions on happenings in foreign capitals and remain what would seem to be a pretty high standard of civility. Particularly if the author(s) thought their opinions would not be shared outside of US government channels. Even the government channels would be pretty narrow with regard to the raw text in DoS cables.

Which makes those cables all the more interesting a read - our representatives' actual opinions of "the natives".


I am sure the average person could relate if one were to consider every private conversation being released to the world. Some things said may have been needed to be said to the audience but not necessarily smart to release to the whole world. This has harmed relations with foreign countries. Eventually it will die down (and probably already has in most places) but you can be sure it is never far from the mind of anyone who meets for a ‘private’ meeting with a US official. I also believe there were unspoken consequences but that of course will probably always remain speculative. In other words, I am not stating this as a fact but merely my unsupported opinion.

As far as if it will "die down". Its debatable whether the average Americans were really outraged to begin with - there were more important things for us to think about - like Britney Spears shaving her head.


I deny nothing. I merely stated that neither Wikileaks nor Assange has been declared a terrorist organization (or terrorist) by the US government (as you asserted). The rest is hyperbole.

Where did I say the "government" declared them terrorists? That would be YOUR assertion.


For example your assertion is that ONLY the right is ‘up in arms’? I have never heard either Hillary Clinton nor President Obama described as right-wing.

Again, where did I say ONLY the right is up in arms? Again, YOUR assertion. Surely you have read enough of my posts to know my beef about the Democrats becoming increasingly right-wing.

And yes, Obama is very right wing, and many progressives have called him out on that.


I couldn’t find a reference to that but as I said, the charges weren’t the point.

So whether or not he actually committed a crime, or was framed up, is of no concern to you?


By speculative it would seem wishful thinking. While I am not a big fan of coincidences, they do occur. Have any more leaks been released? I am still awaiting the smoking gun which has been promised at least twice.

I haven't heard of any further leaks of any signficance. Probably not. Wikileaks might not even be an effective organization anymore. Their leadership destroyed, their funding cut off, denial of service attacks, their reputation smeared... you can call it a "coincidence" if you like, but regardless it is of great benefit to the American Empire.

TJMAC77SP
01-06-2012, 11:36 AM
Where did I say the "government" declared them terrorists? That would be YOUR assertion.

How about if we substitute ‘intimated’ or ‘insuated’?

Again, where did I say ONLY the right is up in arms? Again, YOUR assertion. Surely you have read enough of my posts to know my beef about the Democrats becoming increasingly right-wing. [/QUOTE]

So a more accurate statement would have been that Americans in general were upset (to varying degrees) by the Wikileaks fiasco? If so (and it is), why focus on the right-wing?



And yes, Obama is very right wing, and many progressives have called him out on that.

That is certainly debatable but I guess it depends on where your seat is. The far-right said the same thing about Bush when they perceived him as caving on some issues.


So whether or not he actually committed a crime, or was framed up, is of no concern to you?

The specific charges are inconsequential to this discussion. You are back to making assertions (and this time it is a definite assertion) that he was ‘framed up’. Where is the evidence of this? Unless of course this is merely your unsupported opinion.


I haven't heard of any further leaks of any signficance. Probably not. Wikileaks might not even be an effective organization anymore. Their leadership destroyed, their funding cut off, denial of service attacks, their reputation smeared... you can call it a "coincidence" if you like, but regardless it is of great benefit to the American Empire.

You haven’t heard of any further leaks because there haven’t been any (although Assange has promised same more than once). The leadership wasn’t destroyed, they defected. The denial of service attacks were directed against financial organizations IN SUPPORT of Wikileaks. Funding was not cut off; it was reduced by losing some of the sources donations were processed through. Isn’t it equally possible that Assange is the author of his own downfall with no help from the big bad boogie man (AKA the American Empire)?

Banned
01-08-2012, 01:11 AM
How about if we substitute ‘intimated’ or ‘insuated’?

Fair enough. And it is worth noting that the Democrats have become increasingly pro-war and pro-security, especially after their boy Obeezy took the helm. A lot of people just don't want to contradict their own party (hypocrisy) - but I think the country in general is growing increasingly pro-war - its growing more bi-partisan, or "moderate" if you will.


So a more accurate statement would have been that Americans in general were upset (to varying degrees) by the Wikileaks fiasco? If so (and it is), why focus on the right-wing?

Again, you make a fair point - but I wouldn't say Americans "in general" were upset; there are Americans on both sides of the fence on this issue. Perhaps it would be better to say the War-hawks (dem and rep) were up in arms.


That is certainly debatable but I guess it depends on where your seat is. The far-right said the same thing about Bush when they perceived him as caving on some issues.

To an extent yes, it would depend on your point of view. But even from a neutral perspective, Obama's Administration has been very right wing, equal or perhaps even surpassing Bush. Especially if we take his platform, and compare it to his actual actions. For someone who advocated transparent government, he's been very secretive.


The specific charges are inconsequential to this discussion. You are back to making assertions (and this time it is a definite assertion) that he was ‘framed up’. Where is the evidence of this? Unless of course this is merely your unsupported opinion.

Well, what would you like as "evidence"? The charges have been proven to be bogus (both women were sexually involved with Assange for weeks, one of them even let him live in her apartment, odd behavior for a "rape victim"). Its also odd that this happened in Sweden, the Swedes had no previous beef with Assange that we know of (if he didn't think Sweden was safe, he wouldn't have tried to become a resident there) Yes, it is an assertion - but then again - that's what the "honeypot technique" is all about - it leaves very little physical evidence, and is highly effective.

I find it strange that you refuse to see any possible connection between the two events. Why?


You haven’t heard of any further leaks because there haven’t been any (although Assange has promised same more than once).

Yes...


The leadership wasn’t destroyed, they defected.

Rendered ineffective. Neutralized. Eliminated. Divided. Scattered. Take your pick.


The denial of service attacks were directed against financial organizations IN SUPPORT of Wikileaks.

The Wikileaks site itself also came under attack.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20023932-93.html


Funding was not cut off; it was reduced by losing some of the sources donations were processed through.

Which is a big deal for any organization.


Isn’t it equally possible that Assange is the author of his own downfall with no help from the big bad boogie man (AKA the American Empire)?

Sure. He got into a dick measuring contest with Uncle Sam... and lost.

TJMAC77SP
01-09-2012, 11:44 AM
Fair enough. And it is worth noting that the Democrats have become increasingly pro-war and pro-security, especially after their boy Obeezy took the helm. A lot of people just don't want to contradict their own party (hypocrisy) - but I think the country in general is growing increasingly pro-war - its growing more bi-partisan, or "moderate" if you will.



Again, you make a fair point - but I wouldn't say Americans "in general" were upset; there are Americans on both sides of the fence on this issue. Perhaps it would be better to say the War-hawks (dem and rep) were up in arms.



To an extent yes, it would depend on your point of view. But even from a neutral perspective, Obama's Administration has been very right wing, equal or perhaps even surpassing Bush. Especially if we take his platform, and compare it to his actual actions. For someone who advocated transparent government, he's been very secretive.



Well, what would you like as "evidence"? The charges have been proven to be bogus (both women were sexually involved with Assange for weeks, one of them even let him live in her apartment, odd behavior for a "rape victim"). Its also odd that this happened in Sweden, the Swedes had no previous beef with Assange that we know of (if he didn't think Sweden was safe, he wouldn't have tried to become a resident there) Yes, it is an assertion - but then again - that's what the "honeypot technique" is all about - it leaves very little physical evidence, and is highly effective.

I find it strange that you refuse to see any possible connection between the two events. Why?



Yes...



Rendered ineffective. Neutralized. Eliminated. Divided. Scattered. Take your pick.



The Wikileaks site itself also came under attack.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20023932-93.html



Which is a big deal for any organization.



Sure. He got into a dick measuring contest with Uncle Sam... and lost.


So we have eliminated much of the hyperbole. Now we are left with something closer to reality.

So only War Hawks were upset? Not people who saw the potential harm that was done to relationship the US has with foreign policy? If they were upset at the leaks they are War Hawks? Interesting supposition.

More right wing then Bush? Wow, that is saying something. Is there a possibility that the view of the world from the community activist turned President had to change in the face of reality?

The ‘charges have been proven to be bogus’? Really? So have the Swedes dropped the case? I was under the impression they haven’t been able to question Assange because he is fighting extradition. Living in the rape victim’s home is irrelevant to the charge. Rape laws in Sweden are different than in the US. For example if I refuse to wear a condom when requested while having sex I can be charged with rape in Sweden (even if I have lived with the victim for six months…..irrelevant). As for any ‘dark forces’ behind the charges, I would prefer to see ANY evidence rather than just make statements to fit my own personal agenda. There really is nothing strange about that. Do you refuse the possibility at all that the charges are as they seem and are unrelated to his leak of US classified. I would find that strange.

BTW for the record, I don’t have an opinion one way or the other on Assange’s guilt. He has refused to fact the court so the facts of the case haven’t been heard.

I would say that most of Assange’s difficulties are a direct result of Assange and his massive ego. His organization had serious problems before he ever leaked the US classified. Key personnel were defecting over his actions and attitude before Manning ever entered Iraq.

Banned
01-11-2012, 02:47 AM
So we have eliminated much of the hyperbole. Now we are left with something closer to reality.

So only War Hawks were upset? Not people who saw the potential harm that was done to relationship the US has with foreign policy? If they were upset at the leaks they are War Hawks? Interesting supposition.

Maybe. But the rhetoric about the "damage" caused by Wikileaks isn't disimilar to to the "damage" caused by the leak of the Pentagon Papers.

To be frank - I see the damage as a positive influence. If it hurts our government's ability to wage war on the world... good.


More right wing then Bush? Wow, that is saying something. Is there a possibility that the view of the world from the community activist turned President had to change in the face of reality?

And what reality would that be? That we need to continue waging war, terror, and torture against vague "threats"?


The ‘charges have been proven to be bogus’? Really? So have the Swedes dropped the case? I was under the impression they haven’t been able to question Assange because he is fighting extradition. Living in the rape victim’s home is irrelevant to the charge. Rape laws in Sweden are different than in the US. For example if I refuse to wear a condom when requested while having sex I can be charged with rape in Sweden (even if I have lived with the victim for six months…..irrelevant).

Yes, the rape charge was dropped... NEXT.


As for any ‘dark forces’ behind the charges, I would prefer to see ANY evidence rather than just make statements to fit my own personal agenda. There really is nothing strange about that. Do you refuse the possibility at all that the charges are as they seem and are unrelated to his leak of US classified. I would find that strange.

Sure, it could be a coincidence that conveniently benefits our war effort against Muslims, atheists, socialists, and other undesireables. But laymen looking in on a relatively complicated situation - that's really the best we can do. Come up with a logical hypothesis on what caused the chain of events in question. The honeypot technique has been used repeatedly within the intelligence community, and known cases bear many similiarities to this one. To refuse to see the connections shows your agenda in this all too well.


BTW for the record, I don’t have an opinion one way or the other on Assange’s guilt. He has refused to fact the court so the facts of the case haven’t been heard.

I can't possibly imagine why Assange might feel nervous about returning to a country that could extradite him to the US, who would then send him to Guantanamo for his waterboarding appointment.


I would say that most of Assange’s difficulties are a direct result of Assange and his massive ego. His organization had serious problems before he ever leaked the US classified. Key personnel were defecting over his actions and attitude before Manning ever entered Iraq.

Well let's run with that assumption for a minute. So you assert that Assange's problems were self inflicted, because he operated with an invincibility complex, and didn't understand that his actions could have serious consequences.

So I'm sure if (when) the United States is attacked by one of the many, many people we've pissed off around the world... you'll be saying the same thing?

I'm curious - if we had to step back and stop invading new countries as a result of wikileaks... would that be a bad thing?

TJMAC77SP
01-11-2012, 11:06 AM
Maybe. But the rhetoric about the "damage" caused by Wikileaks isn't disimilar to to the "damage" caused by the leak of the Pentagon Papers.

The comparison to Ellsberg’s disclosure has been tried and fell short in this case. Ellsberg disclosed blatant lies by the administration as well as possible illegal acts. All the Wikileaks disclosure did was embarrass the US and dozens of other foreign countries as well as possibly compromise details of relationships which were best kept quiet.


To be frank - I see the damage as a positive influence. If it hurts our government's ability to wage war on the world... good.

Of course you see it that way. Given a myopic and very limited view of the world I would probably do so as well. In fact I probably did when I was 19 or 20.



And what reality would that be? That we need to continue waging war, terror, and torture against vague "threats"?

“Wage war on the world”…”torture against vague threats”….so much for eliminating the hyperbole.

So your assertion is that Obama has done a near 180 degree turn from his previously stated positions because.....? Gitmo is still not closed because....he really didn't want it closed and his signing the declaration on the first full day of his administration was for show? His background is all a sham and he really a closest conservative? Is that YOUR explanation for the changes?



Yes, the rape charge was dropped... NEXT.

But that isn’t really relevant is it. There are still other charges and they are still seeking extradition. If all the charges are dropped then the discussion becomes moot. I for one would cheer that outcome. Anything to keep Assange out of the news.

BTW: Could you provide a source about the rape charge being dropped? I really can’t find it.


Sure, it could be a coincidence that conveniently benefits our war effort against Muslims, atheists, socialists, and other undesireables. But laymen looking in on a relatively complicated situation - that's really the best we can do. Come up with a logical hypothesis on what caused the chain of events in question. The honeypot technique has been used repeatedly within the intelligence community, and known cases bear many similiarities to this one. To refuse to see the connections shows your agenda in this all too well.

“war effort against Muslims, atheists, socialists, and other undesireables”….Come on really? Do you believe this shit you spout of is it simply for literary impact?

Why is Assange’s sex life complicated to you? The guy travels a great deal (or did). By your own admission he has groupies….he has sex with some of them. In the course of that he allegedly violates some sex laws in Sweden and is reported. How about this explanation; he had sex with two women during the same trip. They find out about each other and are pissed so report him for these violations………boy, THAT has never happened before. I realize that doesn’t appeal to the tinfoil hat brigade but sometimes there just isn’t a conspiracy to be had.


I can't possibly imagine why Assange might feel nervous about returning to a country that could extradite him to the US, who would then send him to Guantanamo for his waterboarding appointment.

“…His waterboarding appointment”…more hyperbole. What charge would the US bring against him? What charges have been brought against him? The US couldn’t request extradition until he is charged with a crime.


Well let's run with that assumption for a minute. So you assert that Assange's problems were self inflicted, because he operated with an invincibility complex, and didn't understand that his actions could have serious consequences.

So I'm sure if (when) the United States is attacked by one of the many, many people we've pissed off around the world... you'll be saying the same thing?

I'm curious - if we had to step back and stop invading new countries as a result of wikileaks... would that be a bad thing?

Exactly what is the correlation between the leaks and the invasion of any country? The first dump was the war logs with the first promised ‘smoking gun’. No bombshell in that dump. So where exactly is the correlation between a quarter of a million US State Department cables on a myriad of subjects and our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan?

BTW: We have been attacked.

Banned
01-12-2012, 03:34 AM
The comparison to Ellsberg’s disclosure has been tried and fell short in this case. Ellsberg disclosed blatant lies by the administration as well as possible illegal acts. All the Wikileaks disclosure did was embarrass the US and dozens of other foreign countries as well as possibly compromise details of relationships which were best kept quiet.

So one leak exposed illegal war and military misconduct, and the second leak exposed illegal war and misconduct... remind me what the difference was again?


Of course you see it that way. Given a myopic and very limited view of the world I would probably do so as well. In fact I probably did when I was 19 or 20.

Same here. At 19-20 I was a Conservative. Then I went abroad and found out American interventionism isn't quite as rosy as its often portrayed.


“Wage war on the world”…”torture against vague threats”….so much for eliminating the hyperbole.

Do you dispute either of these statements?


So your assertion is that Obama has done a near 180 degree turn from his previously stated positions because.....? Gitmo is still not closed because....he really didn't want it closed and his signing the declaration on the first full day of his administration was for show? His background is all a sham and he really a closest conservative? Is that YOUR explanation for the changes?

Good question. Was he actually a closet Conservative all along, or did the absolute power corrupt him into a Conservative? Your point about his initial rhetoric against Gitmo is valid - we can only guess. But either way, the end result is the same: Obama has been the most Conservative president since... well... since Bush.



But that isn’t really relevant is it. There are still other charges and they are still seeking extradition. If all the charges are dropped then the discussion becomes moot. I for one would cheer that outcome. Anything to keep Assange out of the news.

Hit the nail on the head. The Pentagon seems to agree with you.


BTW: Could you provide a source about the rape charge being dropped? I really can’t find it.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=assange+rape+charge+dropped


“war effort against Muslims, atheists, socialists, and other undesireables”….Come on really? Do you believe this shit you spout of is it simply for literary impact?

Tune into the Republican debate sometime.


Why is Assange’s sex life complicated to you? The guy travels a great deal (or did). By your own admission he has groupies….he has sex with some of them. In the course of that he allegedly violates some sex laws in Sweden and is reported. How about this explanation; he had sex with two women during the same trip. They find out about each other and are pissed so report him for these violations………boy, THAT has never happened before. I realize that doesn’t appeal to the tinfoil hat brigade but sometimes there just isn’t a conspiracy to be had.

And why does the Swedish government take it seriously? Why the international witch hunt for his head? You're right that it could all be coinicidence - but either way - it is still of benefit to our war effort.


“…His waterboarding appointment”…more hyperbole. What charge would the US bring against him? What charges have been brought against him? The US couldn’t request extradition until he is charged with a crime.

What crime are all the other inmates at Gitmo being charged with? Oh right, they haven't, because most of them haven't even seen the inside of a courtroom.



Exactly what is the correlation between the leaks and the invasion of any country? The first dump was the war logs with the first promised ‘smoking gun’. No bombshell in that dump.

Yemen.


So where exactly is the correlation between a quarter of a million US State Department cables on a myriad of subjects and our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Do we really need to rehash this again? I have no problem with that - but I think we both are familiar with the various embarrassing revelations in it.


BTW: We have been attacked.

By whom? What country has declared war on us? How long is 9/11 going to be used as a crutch to justify everything we do? 9/11 happened nearly 12 years ago. Osama is dead. His organization is in shambles. Time to move on.

TJMAC77SP
01-12-2012, 11:09 AM
So one leak exposed illegal war and military misconduct, and the second leak exposed illegal war and misconduct... remind me what the difference was again?

What illegality do you speak of? Where have charges been brought? Who has been indicted? Is there a UN sanction?

The illegality has yet to be determined (except in the court of public opinion) and what misconduct did the leaks expose?


Same here. At 19-20 I was a Conservative. Then I went abroad and found out American interventionism isn't quite as rosy as its often portrayed.

So at 21 you are the polar opposite? You don’t see any issue with that?

Most go abroad and see the behavior of other countries and realize that there is indeed a threat out there. You instead chose to believe that left alone all would be ok. No one would ever do anything that would harm the US. No one is trying to steal our technology (and even if they are, who cares, it’s all part of capitalism). Countries like North Korea and Iran should certainly be allowed to have nuclear tipped missiles. It’s all good.


Do you dispute either of these statements?

Of course I do, as would any rational person. “wage war on the world”?!?!? Come on. That is the definition of hyperbole.



http://lmgtfy.com/?q=assange+rape+charge+dropped


Thanks, I really couldn’t find it. He now charged with sexual assault and molestation. So, that aside, extradition to Sweden is still pending. What was the point again?


Tune into the Republican debate sometime.

So, those are the phrases used in the debates? The actual words?


And why does the Swedish government take it seriously? Why the international witch hunt for his head? You're right that it could all be coinicidence - but either way - it is still of benefit to our war effort.

They take crimes seriously. Go figure. So we are down to what? It is a 50/50 split on being a coincidence or conspiracy?


What crime are all the other inmates at Gitmo being charged with? Oh right, they haven't, because most of them haven't even seen the inside of a courtroom.

So you think the US government wants to ship Assange to Gitmo or was this a veiled attempt to bring another irrelevant point into the discussion.



Yemen.

Meaning that is the smoking gun? Please elaborate.


Do we really need to rehash this again? I have no problem with that - but I think we both are familiar with the various embarrassing revelations in it.

As they relate to Iraq and Afghanistan? Absolutely.


By whom? What country has declared war on us? How long is 9/11 going to be used as a crutch to justify everything we do? 9/11 happened nearly 12 years ago. Osama is dead. His organization is in shambles. Time to move on.

Actually it was just over 10 years ago (10 years, 4 months yesterday to be exact) but that wasn’t the point. You said “when the US is attacked”. I merely pointed out that it had been.

Banned
01-14-2012, 08:26 PM
What illegality do you speak of? Where have charges been brought? Who has been indicted? Is there a UN sanction?

The illegality has yet to be determined (except in the court of public opinion) and what misconduct did the leaks expose?

The usual lies that the public is spoonfed on a daily basis, like the coverup of American air strikes in Yemen. But I find your definition interesting - so it is only possible for a government to commit misconduct, if the government themselves declare it to be misconduct?

And also - what criteria do you personally use to determine a "good" leak and a "bad" leak? Are you outraged at the ClimateGate hacker (whoever he was)? Or is that okay because it only embarrased a scientific initiative, not a government?


So at 21 you are the polar opposite? You don’t see any issue with that?

23, and no - that's hardly unusual. Everybody is raised with a certain set of beliefs, what they're taught by their parents, school, etc. Then they go out in the world and develop their own. Classic example would be Keynes - raised as an upper-class Conservative anti-semite, and then in his adult life becoming an outspoken proponent of Jewish rights.


Most go abroad and see the behavior of other countries and realize that there is indeed a threat out there. You instead chose to believe that left alone all would be ok. No one would ever do anything that would harm the US. No one is trying to steal our technology (and even if they are, who cares, it’s all part of capitalism). Countries like North Korea and Iran should certainly be allowed to have nuclear tipped missiles. It’s all good.

Experience abroad can also show that while meddling is sometimes good, its often counter-productive as well. And even "evil" regimes have an OODA loop and put their own self interest over ideology. American Conservatives claim a nuclear Iran would give away warheads to terrorists and launch a strike against America. Why on Earth would they do that? Giving a loaded gun to an organization they don't directly control (even hezbollah) would be beyond stupid, and attacking the US would be suicidal. A nuclear war benefits nobody, which is why even our "evil" enemies wouldn't do it. And there is absolutely ZERO evidence to suggest they would, except American Conservatives (and some liberals) consider them to be evil, because they have a different religion than us.

This all derives from a certain arrogance. We're "the best" country in the world, so we know what's good for everyone else, and if they don't agree with us they must be bad and need to be punished.

In fact, I'll take it a step further and suggest the only reason we believe Iran would act stupid, is because WE are stupid. Americans were stupid enough to hand out weapons and training to random people all over the planet, so that must mean Iran would do the same thing.


Of course I do, as would any rational person. “wage war on the world”?!?!? Come on. That is the definition of hyperbole.

It's also the definition of what we're doing. There is in fact an ACLU case opposing the Federal Government blurring the lines between a combat zone and everything else.


Thanks, I really couldn’t find it. He now charged with sexual assault and molestation. So, that aside, extradition to Sweden is still pending. What was the point again?

That the rape charge was dropped.


So, those are the phrases used in the debates? The actual words?

According to Romney, yes. More spending on the military to oppose Muslim regimes and the "socialists".


They take crimes seriously. Go figure. So we are down to what? It is a 50/50 split on being a coincidence or conspiracy?

So every man who dumps his girlfriend is prosecuted in Sweden?


So you think the US government wants to ship Assange to Gitmo or was this a veiled attempt to bring another irrelevant point into the discussion.

Why do you think he would be treated any different than any of the other "enemies" that we've captured?


Meaning that is the smoking gun? Please elaborate.

We lied about our involvement in that country.


As they relate to Iraq and Afghanistan? Absolutely.

I'm not sure about Iraq, but I do know a pretty extensive file on Significant Events in Afghanistan was leaked; civcas, green on blue, blue on blue, etc. I know from my experience in an RC headquarters that pretty much everything that gets reported up is typed and stashed away somewhere, and most of it never reaches the layman's ears back home.



Actually it was just over 10 years ago (10 years, 4 months yesterday to be exact) but that wasn’t the point. You said “when the US is attacked”. I merely pointed out that it had been.

By what country?

garhkal
06-11-2013, 04:13 PM
Got a wrench to throw in the works here. For those of us calling for Manning to be prosecuted/jailed/called a traitor for his leaking the info he worked with, do we also now feel that the guy who leaked the NSA security programs should also be done?
If not, why is it ok to call manning a traitor and not Snowden?

Pullinteeth
06-11-2013, 04:27 PM
Got a wrench to throw in the works here. For those of us calling for Manning to be prosecuted/jailed/called a traitor for his leaking the info he worked with, do we also now feel that the guy who leaked the NSA security programs should also be done?
If not, why is it ok to call manning a traitor and not Snowden?

I have no idea what you are asking but it Manning is any example, it sure as hell won't be a speedy trial (If he ever leaves Hong Kong) because more than 3 years after his arrest, Manning's trial just entered its second week....

CORNELIUSSEON
06-11-2013, 04:38 PM
Got a wrench to throw in the works here. For those of us calling for Manning to be prosecuted/jailed/called a traitor for his leaking the info he worked with, do we also now feel that the guy who leaked the NSA security programs should also be done?
If not, why is it ok to call manning a traitor and not Snowden?

Snowden left his employer before he leaked, and informed the world of his identity and culpability so that the weight is partially taken off the backs of the Press. As a result, Snowden has acknowledged that he is solely to blame. He is like Manning only in that he is fighting any punishment that could be handed out for his crime.

Manning remained in uniform and on duty by the time he was found and arrested, and is fighting the punishment he is sure to receive as a result.

garhkal
06-12-2013, 05:04 PM
So would it still be logical to extend the 'traitor' moniker to Snowden like many did with Manning?

TJMAC77SP
06-12-2013, 06:35 PM
So would it still be logical to extend the 'traitor' moniker to Snowden like many did with Manning?

Using the faulty definition which these people did then yes it would. It should be noted that Manning has not been charged with treason. I don't see Snowdon being charged with that particular crime either. Other crimes, yes, just not treason.

raustin0017
06-12-2013, 07:01 PM
To whom it may concern, I for one can say PFC Manning is indeed an individual of good moral character. He did what others should have but did not have the courage to do. Are you all such war mongers that you have forgotten what your oath stands for? Or do you wish or reject the idea of having domestic enemies?

I want to to refresh your memories.

"I, _____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States, the governor of the state of _______ (for National Guard enlistees) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Some of you might say that he was to follow the orders of the officers appointed over him. That is only true to some degree. If crimes were committed and then a "COVER UP" followed by an erroneous investigation. Which sadly happens on a weekly basis. Then the order is unlawful. General Military Authority overrides much my friends.

The real crime that is committed are the individuals that try to cover things up. To save their own careers. You call it what you want. I can tell you honestly that the war in Iraq is the biggest load of shit, followed by a side order of extra shitty also known as Afghanistan.

What amuses me ever more is how many of you stand behind our government and our senior officers. What? You think they carry a badge of justice on their chests and walk around with halos over their heads? I think not, guess what.... they don't give two shits about you, me and the man next to you. But they will send you to any country that they have a particular problem or there preconceived agenda is for that country. Dick Cheney was quoted as to say "We were going to invade Iraq anyway." WoW just WoW.

So here we sit with two conflicts, a waining economy, the largest national debt our country has ever seen, 800 billion dollar defense budget, and our own people are suffering on a daily basis. But you will call this young PFC a traitor. The traitors are the ones who are calling the shots and covering it up. Keep the war machine running for their agendas, tune in to CNN and believe what your told to believe. God only knows a third of you are actually capable of critical thinking and the rest of you will roll over on your backs when the master tells you to do so.

Luckily for me I will not be an indentured servant to the government for much longer. It just took a decade to wake up.Suggested reading for some of you.

American History
The Bill of Rights / The United States Constitution

Perhaps then you some of you can form a rational conclusion.

What you meant to say is..."Lucky for us you want be serving very much longer." Your welcome for the correction. When you get out maybe you can find a little place in downtown Pyongyang, NK. I hear they are looking for folks who are anti-American's.

CORNELIUSSEON
06-12-2013, 07:29 PM
Using the faulty definition which these people did then yes it would. It should be noted that Manning has not been charged with treason. I don't see Snowdon being charged with that particular crime either. Other crimes, yes, just not treason.

The trouble with the crime of treason, is that it is one of the few crimes enumerated and defined by the Constitution.

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution defines Treason as follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Clause 2 of that same section defines the acceptable punishment for Treason:

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Clause 2 limits Congress' ability to define treason or to set its punishment, as a means of preventing political "offenders" from being charged as traitors. At least two witnesses must testify in court that the defendant committed a treasonable act.

TJMAC77SP
06-12-2013, 08:00 PM
The trouble with the crime of treason, is that it is one of the few crimes enumerated and defined by the Constitution.

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution defines Treason as follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Clause 2 of that same section defines the acceptable punishment for Treason:

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Clause 2 limits Congress' ability to define treason or to set its punishment, as a means of preventing political "offenders" from being charged as traitors. At least two witnesses must testify in court that the defendant committed a treasonable act.

And why did you quote my post?

CORNELIUSSEON
06-12-2013, 08:35 PM
And why did you quote my post?


Believe it or not, SOME of us actually do research. I did NOT quote you, I went back to the Senate's annotated US Constitution website, and cut and pasted their original text and comments. Until this moment, I didn't know that you have used the same source in an earlier post - which I still haven't seen nor read. However, the text in my posting is still the answer to the questions asked on this topic.

RobotChicken
06-13-2013, 07:36 AM
Believe it or not, SOME of us actually do research. I did NOT quote you, I went back to the Senate's annotated US Constitution website, and cut and pasted their original text and comments. Until this moment, I didn't know that you have used the same source in an earlier post - which I still haven't seen nor read. However, the text in my posting is still the answer to the questions asked on this topic.

"Well done 'Corneliusseon' on the research SIR!! Sounds like it was 'political' basis for their disclosure of the violation of the constitution of the United States that brought all this on!"

TJMAC77SP
06-13-2013, 10:37 AM
Believe it or not, SOME of us actually do research. I did NOT quote you, I went back to the Senate's annotated US Constitution website, and cut and pasted their original text and comments. Until this moment, I didn't know that you have used the same source in an earlier post - which I still haven't seen nor read. However, the text in my posting is still the answer to the questions asked on this topic.

You quoted my post in your post (which we all know was per your normal MO a cut and paste job - that wasn't the question) so YES you did quote me. My question was why since your post was completely irrelevant to it. So since my post was not a question what earlier 'question' did your post answer

CORNELIUSSEON
06-13-2013, 04:08 PM
You quoted my post in your post (which we all know was per your normal MO a cut and paste job - that wasn't the question) so YES you did quote me. My question was why since your post was completely irrelevant to it. So since my post was not a question what earlier 'question' did your post answer

If you are referring to the text in the balloon, Then I will say that I did that to hold you as an example of a person who gives disjointed answers that do not refer back to the question. My posting was to give the proper reasons for your answer to the earlier question. You said that Snowden wouldn't face treason charges, but you never said WHY. I gave forth the facts as to WHY Snowden probably won't face treason charges since he gave his confession outside of open court, and his actions probably weren't witnessed by two witnesses. When he shows up in court, I will assume that he has a lawyer with enough acumen to have him plead Not Guilty, and to file a motion to suppress the confession because he wasn't in open court when he gave it, and he wasn't represented by counsel.

TJMAC77SP
06-13-2013, 04:27 PM
If you are referring to the text in the balloon, Then I will say that I did that to hold you as an example of a person who gives disjointed answers that do not refer back to the question. My posting was to give the proper reasons for your answer to the earlier question. You said that Snowden wouldn't face treason charges, but you never said WHY. I gave forth the facts as to WHY Snowden probably won't face treason charges since he gave his confession outside of open court, and his actions probably weren't witnessed by two witnesses. When he shows up in court, I will assume that he has a lawyer with enough acumen to have him plead Not Guilty, and to file a motion to suppress the confession because he wasn't in open court when he gave it, and he wasn't represented by counsel.

As usual your grasp has exceeded your capability. There is nothing disjointed whatsoever about my answer (to anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension skills).

I directly answered the question asked....

Garhkl:" So would it still be logical to extend the 'traitor' moniker to Snowden like many did with Manning?”

Taking into consideration what I believe to be a common misuse of the charge of Treason I answered….

Me: ”Using the faulty definition which these people did then yes it would. It should be noted that Manning has not been charged with treason. I don't see Snowdon being charged with that particular crime either. Other crimes, yes, just not treason.”


You decided to AGAIN troll Google and cut and paste completely unnecessary missives in a misguided attempt to show what I am sure you believe to be intelligence. You AGAIN failed.

If you desired to provide information, fine do so and waste time, ours and yours. Don’t quote me unless it directly relates to what I have said. Otherwise, as always be prepared to be called on it.

Now this post in which you AGAIN attempt to deflect (reference the bold….more irrelevance to anything I have posted).

BTW: Care to further discuss how a civilian military spouse can be charged under the UCMJ again?

garhkal
06-17-2013, 05:39 AM
I'll agree, the term is often misused.

Pullinteeth
06-17-2013, 01:35 PM
So would it still be logical to extend the 'traitor' moniker to Snowden like many did with Manning?

Absolutely. Whether they actually qualify as traitors, that is a legal definition but sure, you can call 'em both pretty much anything you want.

Sapper COL
06-22-2013, 02:27 PM
I'm sick of hearing and reading about the Manning case and the new NSA leaks by Snowden. We have laws and are too stupid to enforce them. We should have hung Manning a long time ago and Snowden should have been hung at least a week ago. Treason is treason. There will be others that come out and try to hide behind the label 'whistleblower'. Need to hang these cowards to protect this great Nation. Our leaders need to lead and not cower to the media and the extreme small percentage of pacifists.

CORNELIUSSEON
06-22-2013, 08:52 PM
I'm sick of hearing and reading about the Manning case and the new NSA leaks by Snowden. We have laws and are too stupid to enforce them. We should have hung Manning a long time ago and Snowden should have been hung at least a week ago. Treason is treason. There will be others that come out and try to hide behind the label 'whistleblower'. Need to hang these cowards to protect this great Nation. Our leaders need to lead and not cower to the media and the extreme small percentage of pacifists.

I agree – in general – with what you say, but the real problem with PFC Manning is that he was poorly led. Back in the day when I spent a lot of time working in a Battalion S-2/3, we didn’t have the ability to do what Manning did because he had access to the Internet and modern electronic computers, and I worked with paper and microfiche. In those days, the kind of information that Manning stole was kept locked up in a safe, and authorized persons signed into and out from that safe every time they place such information in and took it out. There was no Copier in that S-2/3, and requests to copy such information had to be made in writing, and specific people were detailed with the job of making those copies, for which the requester signed his life away when taking possession of those copies. No one was allowed to bring personal property into and from the room the safe was located in, and anyone who came in or left was subject to being searched for such personal property.

My points are these:

1. Why was PFC Manning working at a computer that had one or more USB Ports? I’ll bet that it doesn’t have a Floppy Drive or an Optical Drive, and it is isolated from WiFi.
2. Since he was only a PFC, why was he allowed to work reletively unsupervised?
3. Why didn’t his work require countersigning by his Supervisor. Double Logging by the Supervisor’s CAC and Manning’s CAC would limit, if not prevent, his stealing of data.
4. Why was he given such open access to data he wasn’t specifically ordered to work on? If his Supervisor wanted him to work on a specific file, then that supervisor should have set access to Manning’s CAC for the duration of the work period, with access withdrawn at the end of the work period.

The bottom line is that if Manning’s leaders had done their jobs, then Manning would have had less of an opportunity to screw up the way he did.

As for Snowden, we were just asking for his crime to be committed when we outsourced such work to contractors. Again, the persons who managed their contract failed to do their jobs, giving Snowden plenty of time to do what he did.

Fortunately, he is now charged with two Espionage charges, and the theft of Federal property.

In both cases, their supervisory/management personnel should get a career haircut as well.

CORNELIUSSEON
06-23-2013, 01:12 PM
Well, now, it seems that Snowden has started to feel the heat, and has fled to Russia. Any bets on how long he stays there?

efmbman
06-23-2013, 01:54 PM
Well, now, it seems that Snowden has started to feel the heat, and has fled to Russia. Any bets on how long he stays there?

My guess is Russia is a fuel stop. He will not be staying in Russia. Iceland has been mentioned as a destination.

Pullinteeth
06-24-2013, 01:53 PM
My guess is Russia is a fuel stop. He will not be staying in Russia. Iceland has been mentioned as a destination.

He never left the airport and now they don't know where he is. He was supposed to be headed to Cuba but never took the flight. Ecuador is considering giving him safe harbour...

garhkal
06-24-2013, 04:56 PM
And how do they expect to get him there from russia on a straight through flight?

Pullinteeth
06-24-2013, 07:01 PM
And how do they expect to get him there from russia on a straight through flight?

He was supposed to stop in Cuba and Venezuala on the way there...

garhkal
06-25-2013, 09:50 PM
Ah.. saw that on the news.. he had booked the flight but was not on it.

efmbman
06-25-2013, 10:12 PM
Seems he is living in the airport terminal in Moscow. Left the plane, but has not left the secure terminal area thus did not clear passport control. Putin is not going to hand him over, but is hoping Snowden leaves Russia soon. What a charlie-foxtrot.

Pullinteeth
07-02-2013, 05:06 PM
Am I the only one that is reminded of the movie The Terminal with Tom Hanks?

TJMAC77SP
07-02-2013, 06:37 PM
Am I the only one that is reminded of the movie The Terminal with Tom Hanks?

Only this story doesn't involve a nice man with a kind heart.

Greg
07-02-2013, 06:47 PM
Only this story doesn't involve a nice man with a kind heart.

Maybe Pussy Riot will perform something in Snowden's honor[sic].

Pullinteeth
07-03-2013, 12:37 PM
Only this story doesn't involve a nice man with a kind heart.

I don't know him and wasn't inferring that they are the same but just that his situation at this moment reminds me of the movie-man with no country stuck in an airport...

TJMAC77SP
07-03-2013, 01:05 PM
I don't know him and wasn't inferring that they are the same but just that his situation at this moment reminds me of the movie-man with no country stuck in an airport...

I know. I was making a point. I irks me to see this kid portrayed as some hero slaying dragons.

Pullinteeth
07-03-2013, 02:04 PM
I know. I was making a point. I irks me to see this kid portrayed as some hero slaying dragons.

From what I have read, he actually thought he was doing the right thing. He was also selective in what he released... Not like Manning who was a petulant child and "leaked" everything he could. Now? I think the pressure on Snowden is causing him to release MORE not less....

TJMAC77SP
07-03-2013, 02:47 PM
From what I have read, he actually thought he was doing the right thing. He was also selective in what he released... Not like Manning who was a petulant child and "leaked" everything he could. Now? I think the pressure on Snowden is causing him to release MORE not less....

Actually I have to admit when I wrote that I was thinking of Manning but will admit to not being entirely convinced that Snowden is the hero in his story either. Not the same level of conviction as Manning but not ready to throw him a parade either.

Pullinteeth
08-21-2013, 06:15 PM
He got 35 years....

Jumper5
08-22-2013, 11:40 PM
He got 35 years....

...and now he wants to to be known as Chelsea Manning and go through hormone therapy. http://news.yahoo.com/bradley-manning-says-wants-live-woman-120700028.html

CORNELIUSSEON
08-30-2013, 08:34 PM
He got 35 years....

With the possibility of Parole in the future.

Pullinteeth
10-10-2013, 01:13 PM
With the possibility of Parole in the future.

The not so distant future....he is eligible in seven years...

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/08/21/Bradley-Manning-eligible-for-parole-in-7-years-lawyers-says/UPI-90621377066600/